User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 211

Archive 205

←

Archive 209

Archive 210

Archive 211

Archive 212

Archive 213

→

Archive 215

Templates for addressing personal attacks

Are there any templates for addressing personal attacks?

When an editor is in a discussion on an article talk page and gets personally attacked, it may be useful if there is a template for responding to the personal attack instead of getting into an argument about it. A template would be an impersonal response to a personal attack.

Similarly, there could be templates for addressing uncivil behaviors that an editor may encounter when trying to discuss improving an article on its talk page. The impersonal nature of a template in such situations may help by making the dispute ...... less personal. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: See Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Behavior_towards_editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

In particular, Template:Uw-npa2 or Template:Uw-agf3 seem to fit the bill. (Level 1 versions of the templates are so conversational it may not be immediately obvious that it's a template.) Rhoark (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thanks for that, I've found appropriate edit warring messages, I've had to use vandalism templates for edit warring in the past. Cheers, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I think those templates are used on user talk pages, rather than in discussions on article talk pages? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's better not to give personal attacks any kind of oxygen on an article talk page. Rhoark (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's difficult for most editors to leave a personal attack unanswered on an article talk page, and they don't. In addition to the benefit of the impersonal nature of a template, it would be a well-written convenience for the person being attacked and may thus reduce the stress involved in having to think about composing a response. Less stress, less effect of the personal attack. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Just remove or redact the personal attack if it's obviously a personal attack. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

If there's anything I've noticed on Wikipedia, there's not a problem that can't be solved with a good, heartless template! - 72.238.54.247 (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

NeilN, One could try that, although it may not be supported by policy (see for example WP:RPA). Also, you might be thinking of the worst type of attacks that are listed at WP:WIAPA. After that list is a description that includes more common types of personal attacks, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done."

In any case, templates would be another option for an editor to deal with the situation. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I can think of few things less useful than to respond to a personal attack with a template. Templates are universally perceived as bureaucratic boilerplate, giving the impression that one is in communication with a faceless machine, and their use in an interpersonal situation is particular demeaning and aggressive. They will seem especially insulting if they are used by one of the people involved in the matter, and therefore not the best person to distinguish a personal attack from a disagreement. The best thing we could do with the existing templates is to remove them via TfD. In general, there is no constructive way to respond directly to a personal attack. The most practical course is to delete and ignore. Anyone who should happen to see it before it gets deleted will immediately side with the person receiving the abuse. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with DGG. There used to be a civility noticeboard but it was discontinued. It was such a long time ago that I forget its name. People mocked and derided that board but it served a useful purpose. It should be restored. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't here then, but it's not hard to guess why it was canned. There is no consensus on (1) what civility is, (2) when incivility is justified, or (3) whether incivility is ever justified. Similarly, courts would be pointless if there were no legislatures or judges. The time previously wasted on the aforementioned noticeboard is now wasted at ANI, a simple change of venue. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: The board was known as Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. It served a useful function in my opinion. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is a problem that templating may itself be perceived as a personal attack. However it is required by the rubric for WP:AIV, specifically point 2, likewise WP:AN3 requires templating. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Templating is problematic, but it's better than the alternative. Lesser of two evils. There is a need to address behavior problems in an acceptable way, short of going to directly to ANI without passing Go. Simply ignoring bad behavior in the name of peace is a self-defeating surrender to bad behavers, and to my knowledge no civilized society in the history of mankind has ever done that and survived long enough to be remembered. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Just for the sake of discussion, instead of responding to a personal attack directly, what would the editors here think of responding using a template that said, "Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors." --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Claiming it is an "attack" could be perceived as an attack. QuackGuru (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Anytime someone's bad behavior is addressed, they can perceive it as an attack, but that shouldn't prevent the bad behavior from being addressed in a civil way. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps an anonymous notification system can work. If you think an editor has strayed from discussing the content to discussing the conduct of another editor (which can take the form of a personal attack but doesn't necessarily have to be a personal attack), then that discussion should end there but it may be necessary to continue that discussion elsewhere (e.g. an editor is edit warring, or there are are behavior issues). An uninvolved Admin can react to the alert and then decide if this is something for AN/I, the edit warring board or requires some other form of intervention. The editor who gave the alert can keep it a secret that he/she did this, that will help to avoid creating personal disputes. AN/I discussions where an uninvolved Admin starts a discussion about an editor's conduct looks to me much better than the current practice where we ask that the involved editor who complains about the behavior of another editor should initiate a discussion. Count Iblis (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

One problem with all the notification systems, templates etc. that we're discussing is that users frequently claim personal attacks that are neither attacks nor even personal. That is why the old Wikiquette board was useful, as it served as a reality check. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

(undo | thank | scold) Rhoark (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

All those templates are absolutely awful. They conceal rather than reveal the nature of the complaint, and encourage bureaucracy and Wikilawyering. Worst of all are when people use them in programs with some kind of automated escalation. Everybody assumes machines have more rights than people (instinctively, because IRL they are more often owned by the rich), so someone who wouldn't think to say "just a kind note" the first time and "I'm warning you" the next time and "I'm making an ultimatum that you stop this or I'll have you thrown off the pedia" the third time can be persuaded to do just that while hiding behind the interface. The medium is the message, and if the medium is threatening people without even bothering to listen to what they say or write something personalized, the message is loud and clear. Wnt (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you're responding to my above message of 23:27, 23 August 2016. So let me ask you, if an editor makes a personal attack, and another editor responds by writing without a template, "Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors," would that editor's response be OK? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

That's cold, not very instructive; I'm not going to say it's wrong to say, since an editor should have the right to say what he feels, especially when he thinks policy is violated. But there's definitely a better way to put it that depends on the specific situation, and I'd want to encourage editors to think for themselves and write for themselves and do that, even knowing that yes sometimes they'll think for themselves and write something bitter and not very compliant with policy that just causes trouble. I think on balance, if we can forgive people their foibles, their virtues should exceed them. Wnt (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I would put it this way: I can't think of even one instance in which a template warning works with a user who is not an absolute newbie. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Wnt, Re "That's cold, not very instructive" – Could you give an example (hypothetical or real) of a good response to a personal attack that is instructive and not cold? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Suppose Alice is editing or administering an article about some Phobosie religious organization and she sees Bob say to Charlie that "nobody cares what a Phobosie stooge has to say". For purposes of illustration we'll peek behind the curtain and suppose that Charlie really is a Phobosie and a member of that organization and has been trying to remove negative publicity about that organization, but our editors don't have any real evidence of this. Well, Alice could template Bob, because he's making personal attacks, or she could ignore him, because she's suspicious Charlie has a COI. But a better thing to do is to say "Bob, I know you're frustrated by the edit warring, but jumping to conclusions about an editor's affiliations and bias isn't really the most productive way to proceed here and could get you into serious admin trouble over WP:NPA issues. It's more useful if you cite specific edits and say why they're bad on the talk page, and after a while if we keep having trouble we can make a case that he's doing POV editing." I mean, it'll always depend intricately on the circumstances exactly how to proceed. If Charlie isn't making POV edits then it might be better for her to use a more warning tone and stress Charlie's right to do good editing regardless of his personal beliefs, but even then it's better, when the situation and one's emotion permits it, to speak as a confederate looking to help someone head off trouble rather than as someone making a direct challenge. Wnt (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that example of how a third party, Alice, could respond. Suppose Alice didn't respond. Keeping the same premises, could you give an example of a good response by Charlie, the target of the personal attack, which is a response that is instructive and not cold? --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, in the not unlikely event that Charlie is POV-pushing, there's no ideal response; if it "works", it's a problem. The second instance also sort of collapses because if there's no one listening to the dismissal of Charlie's opinions, it doesn't matter that much. Also, if Charlie really has any motive to win an edit war, he might have a vested interest in not complaining about Bob's bad tactics that expose him to admin action if it comes to it... Still, if charitably disposed Charlie could say something like "I've given you the reasons based in policy and it's not helping for you to make conclusions about my beliefs rather than considering the edits themselves. You should follow WP:NPA and not do this..." Wnt (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Roughly with a ball park figure, what percentage of the time do you think that when someone is personally attacked, they have done something wrong that provoked the attack? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No idea. In concept I'd suppose there would be a 50-50 chance that either party was the "worse person". A personal attacker attacks multiple people but a person meriting attack ticks off multiple people - that is conceptually symmetrical, but these numbers may differ. Policy definitions and biases and social phenomena skew it. I don't think we could objectively come up with a figure everyone would agree on, even given a sufficient dataset and time for analysis. Wnt (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. If I were to guess I would say 50-50 without much confidence. But of course it doesn't matter since Wikipedia policy WP:NPA is clear that a personal attack is prohibited under any circumstance when it states, "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia."

Regarding your examples, I don't think they would work on an article talk page because they would have too much discussion about individuals that would distract from discussing the article. However, they may be well suited to a user talk page.

There was a previous response that I mentioned just for the sake of discussion, "Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors." Regarding calling it "cold", yes, I guess one could say that but I think that's a virtue here. If one feels a need to respond to a personal attack, they should try to minimize the chance of further discussion on the article talk page. Being unemotional and business-like in the situation helps. Note that the first two sentences of WP:NPA are, "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. "

I think the above-mentioned response is very instructive, "Comment on content, not on contributors." I personally have found this a valuable guiding principle when editing Wikipedia. The editors who thought it up did a good job. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't mean to sidetrack the preceding subthread, just continue above this.
Any "solution" that depends on large numbers of people choosing to alter their basic nature is not a solution. It's simply not going to happen. People can learn more effective ways of communicating by spending time and money on psychotherapy, but even then only if they are highly motivated to change and prepared to do some hard work on themselves. The proposers of too many of these "solutions" assume that everybody is like them in this area, or could be if they merely decided to be, like throwing a switch.
I've sometimes wondered why WMF doesn't consult psychology/sociology professionals on these ongoing behavior issues, and I've pretty much concluded that the reason is purely political: those professionals would recommend changes that would piss off too many editors (mostly editors whose behavior would have to change). It's axiomatic that any significant improvement, no matter how it's achieved, would be very traumatic in the relatively short term. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Why don't copyright templates work across Wikis?

Same server. Same software. Same copyright law. So why doesn't a { { PD-US } } copyright template on the Finnish WP work for a graphic uploaded there? See: https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiedosto:Raivaaja_20-04-1912.jpg Why are templates language specific? Carrite (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no central repository for templates. One can do cross-wiki templates but only if mw:Scary transclusion is turned on (it isn't on many projects for performance reasons). People with import abilities can import templates from one project to another with the same code and they would work the same. However, there is the issue of localization. Our {{PD-US}} template would mean very little on the Finnish Wikipedia as it is in English. In any case perhaps you are looking for fi:Malline:Vanha which seems to be the right one (maybe). --Majora (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

That's closer to the mark, copyright-wise, but still not correct (US publications pre-1923 are copyright clear regardless of whether their authors are living or not). Carrite (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

If it is free use (which it seems like it is), why don't you just move it to Commons? You can use [1] to move it pretty much without trouble. It doesn't look like the Finnish Wikipedia has a template that is specific to the PD-US one we have. If you want to keep it on the Finnish Wikipedia, perhaps you can transfer over our template. Back to the topic at hand though, a central repository of templates is probably possible but each one would have to have localization support for all the various languages. That would be the hard part. --Majora (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

phab:T121470 is the ongoing project to make this possible. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I had forgotten about that wishlist survey. Good to know that they are working on it at least. Thanks for the reminder Jo-Jo Eumerus!

Freedom of Speech Deprived on Wikipedia, I seek help

My name is Benson and I seek help.

I am a fairly new user on Wikipedia, and I was falsely accused of "being a puppet" and "destroying" contents on Chinese Wikipedia by users Outlookxp and Jimmy Xu. I am currently permanently banned, unreasonably and arbitrarily. Please see below for details.

1. None of the accounts listed by Outlookxp were used by me. I have never “destroyed”(as stated by Outlookxp) any contents on wiki, nor been a “puppet” (again, stated by Outlookxp and Jimmy Xu ) of anyone else.

2. I asked user Outlookxp to list out the so-called “destruction” I’ve made according to my contributions. However, instead of doing so, he further accused me of being a “political fanatic” and “destroyer” without providing any supporting evidence. Complete conversation can be found on my Talk AdmimBenson on Chinese wiki.

3. I believe that there are political reasons behind this ban, as recently certain senior users including Outlookxp and Jimmy Xu have been banning accounts in big numbers; I believe they are trying to block and deprive other users of having freedom of speech on wiki with the intention to manipulate politics in and between China and ROC. I seek help to have my account unlocked and the above users removed from such authorities in order to have freedom of speech restored on Wikipedia.

I thank whoever gets access to read this message in advance. Thank you.

Sincerely, Benson

AdmimBenson (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• The user talk page is here and it is in Chinese script. There is a Google Translate version in English here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you figure out which edits were apparently objectionable? EllenCT (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

On the Chinese language Wikipedia via Google Translate, probably not. It needs someone familiar with the language and the issues involved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

We literally have an article on it. EllenCT (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

AdmimBenson has not summarized in English what caused the dispute, which would have been helpful. If he/she is from Taiwan (ROC), there is a whole list of things that might have upset people in mainland China. This is similar to the Russian language Wikipedia, which is in the Russian language but is not under the control of the Russian government.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Please join WikiProject Editor Retention and help brainstorm

Jimbo, I recently joined WikiProject Editor Retention and you should, too. You could tell your potential endowment donors that for every million you raise, you'll give the Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Hall of Fame a hundred dollars each. @Marc Brent (WMF): ?

Do you think that would work better than MoodBoxes? The MoodBoxes comments on Reddit crack me up. @Dario (WMF) and Halfak (WMF): are you ever going to answer the questions at meta:Grants talk:IdeaLab/MoodBoxes#Right of first refusal? In particular: Are there any experiments planned with greater potential to attract and retain additional editors? EllenCT (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@EllenCT: FYI the new Edit Review Improvements project (in planning stages) may incorporate some aspects of Moodbar/FeedbackDashboard, tho not the "moodboxes" themselves AFAIK. Cheers, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Patents, market viability, and noteworthiness

Jimbo, recently, on the talk page of the fairly controversial electronic cigarette article, I learned that cytisine (trade name: Tabex) is the smoking cessation aid which performs the best overall in the most recent WP:MEDRS-grade research review of the subject. Both tobacco and smoking cessation products are extremely lucrative, high-volume, high-profit margin products due in large part to the addictive properties of nicotine and the widespread deleterious effects of tobacco smoking. The tobacco industry is notorious for astroturf, corrupting M.D.s in advertisements, and generally being the most poisonous legal product everywhere. However, cytisine is an over-the-counter medicine from Bulgaria which is likely unpatentable in most jurisdictions, because its botanical source, Laburnum anagyroides (golden rain acacia) has been used for smoking cessation in Bulgaria since the 1960s. Today I was in a typical pharmacy where I saw large ads for a competing patented and relatively expensive but much less efficacious product. My question to you, Jimbo, is: how should we as editors represent such facts, and how should the facts influence our editing choices? EllenCT (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Uh, the cytisine article pretty much says that. Though I'm assuming the other drug you're talking about is Chantix. Which according to the most recent studies performed equally to cytisine, which would make sense given it is essentially concentrated cytisine. There is a company that licensed Tabex but they haven't gotten FDA approval yet. By the time they do Chantix will be generic which is why they're having a hard time getting funding. Capeo (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it was not Chantix. I'm more interested in what articles about tobacco, smoking, and smoking cessation should say about the situation. EllenCT (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what situation you mean? What do you think our articles should say? Tabex, by the way, was banned as over the counter in every EU country due to reports of side effects similar to Chantix and actually linked to deaths. Though it's not as concentrated as Chantix, it being over the counter allowed people to take too much at once or take it for dangerously extended periods of time. All that said Wikipedia can't say anything that a good RS hasn't already said so unless you have some strong sources discussing the situation I'm not sure what you think our articles should say.Capeo (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

What is your source for the banned and deaths claims? "...it should be noted that while cytisine has not been 'banned' as one headline said, it does not have a licence to market in the UK."--(UK NHS) My question to Jimbo is about how we should edit in such situations, where the lack of a patent may be preventing the availability of less expensive or more effective drugs, or both. Do we have an obligation to treat such situations differently than those in which such considerations do not apply? EllenCT (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm at work on my phone at the moment but later tonight I can find what I was reading last night. Just google cytisine side effects and cytisine overdose if you want to find them though. I know it was a Forbes article that mentioned any country that joined the EU had to take it off the market. Then look up Extab. That's who is licencing it now for the US and the EU. Problem is they will never bring it to market before the equivalent generics come out at a comparable price. Way too many hurdles. Not the least of which it will require acres of orchards of these trees that don't start bearing seeds for four years. The lack of patent has nothing to do with it. As to how we edit about it? Like everything else. Based on notability and reliable sources. It sounds to me like you want to right some perceived wrong. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Capeo (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow - yet another way that the American medicine still cannot catch up with 1960s Soviet bloc technology - add that to phage therapy and low dose interferons for influenza treatment. It should be considered that a corrupt command economy dominated by heavy-handed state intervention on behalf of the politically well connected is simply not capable of achieving as much as Communism. Wnt (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Generalizing to political systems is not as accurate an explanation as can be obtained by considering the proportion of commercially important patents owned by the public sector. That factor does, however, stem from purely political choices depicted here and e.g. in Figure 1 on p. 11 (PDF p. 16) here. EllenCT (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo, do you think we have moral obligations in such situations, or does the prohibition against righting perceived wrongs require that editors disregard such ethical considerations? EllenCT (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyone, where is the prohibition against righting perceived wrongs? I can see it's fairly well known but I can't find its guideline, policy, or essay. And anyway, in this case, the question is about choices within editorial discretion. Did it used to be in WP:SOAP? Furthermore, is insufficient access to free knowledge a perceived wrong which the Foundation Mission specifically instructs to right? EllenCT (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. What exactly do you want WP to say on this subject? The cytisine article already cites the studies you mention. The only thing that may be lacking from it is a section on Extab which seems to have enough RS to warrant some mention. The varenicline article mentions that it is a cytisine analog. What "free knowledge" is missing? Keeping in mind that our opinions aren't free knowledge in the Wp sense. Capeo (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

An essay? I have not yet formulated an answer to your question, and my question to Jimbo is part of my attempt to do so. And you asked the same question above, but as I said then, "I'm more interested in what articles about tobacco, smoking, and smoking cessation should say about the situation," than the articles about the specific products, and I now wonder whether there are aspects here which should be covered in Patent and Research and development. In referring to my opinions, do you imply that I am trying to include my opinions? In my studies of controversial articles, I have on multiple occasions been accused of trying to insert a personal opinion by editors who were, at the time, apparently trying to exclude one of the top two mainstream opinions, and I suspect that is a recurring failure mode in achieving WP:NPOV. EllenCT (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The smoking cessation article should mention cytisine. Beyond that I see no RS that would deem any mention of it in anything else you mention. Do you have an RS that says this has anything to do with patent issues? The company that's trying to get it to market in the US doesn't even seem to mention patents as being an issue in bringing it to market that I can find in a cursory search. It seems like you're starting with a premise and trying to fit it into the articles rather than starting with good sources. Capeo (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, e.g. [2]. What premise do you think I have started with? EllenCT (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Uh, that has nothing to do with patent issues. Most orphan drugs can be patented or are given timed exclusivity. I clearly have no idea what your premise is after you provided that source. Orphan drugs treat orphan diseases. Diseases so rare that at times there are only one or two know patients in the world. The R&D for them is often subsidized by governing medical bodies as it would never be profitable otherwise. What does this have anything to do with anything we've discussed above? Capeo (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

If you Google "orphan drug," it says the definition is, "a pharmaceutical that remains commercially undeveloped owing to limited potential for profitability." It does not mention patents or rare diseases. Our article Orphan drug has a much different and more specific definition. Could that be part of the problem? EllenCT (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

What problem? The reason orphan drugs are *commercially* undeveloped is because they are given orphan status because orphan drugs get funding for development because there is no commercial market, due to them usually being for rare conditions. See the FDA. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

We are not discussing economic reasons. We are discussing policy reasons pertaining to patent terms including term length. Why did you delete my question about whether you were stalking my contributions from your talk page? EllenCT (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

OID summed it up but orphan drugs are specifically for orphan diseases. The Google definition is, as always, overly simplified. Hence one of the keywords in your source being "rare diseases". The bigger problem though is that I'm failing to see how you thought that source could have anything to do with what we discussed above. It mentions nothing about smoking or cytisine that I could find. So you went with the oversimplified definition and then were going to draw some inference to the what we've discussed already? That's complete synthesis and OR. If a good source doesn't explicitly say exactly what you want to include in an article then you can't put it in. Capeo (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

What is your source for "the Google definition is, as always, overly simplified"? Do you contend that pharmaceuticals which have fallen out of patent but have not been approved as generics are not orphan drugs? EllenCT (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you trying to argue that Google dictionary is an RS? Over say, the medical bodies and researchers that define orphan drugs? I'm not even going to go there. As to your second question, my contention is that I've never once seen an orphan drug defined like that. Mostly because it is completely at odds with what an orphan drug actually is. So, again, unless you have a damn good RS that says drugs that have fallen out of patent are orphan drugs then you're basically making up you're own definition. Capeo (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that reasonable people may reasonably disagree about whether the top commercial provider of instant reference services is able to proofread a dictionary. EllenCT (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Those may be drugs that have been 'orphaned' but they are not 'orphan drugs' in the medical use of the term. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you prefer the term "Orphanized" drug? EllenCT (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo, maybe smoking abatement is merely a terms problem. Can we please try to figure out Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis? "Bti may remain effective from 24 hours to over one month"[3]? Would that be a better example? The manufacturer has control over the effective duration, which used to be several dozen times longer. EllenCT (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

What's your source for "several dozen times longer"? That would be years. Given we're talking about a naturally occurring soil bacteria that dies in sunlight that seems strange. Its survival is dictated by the environment. It will persist in soil in treated areas if the conditions are right though.Capeo (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

That is a good question. In 2011, I found World Health Organization guidance which said apply every five years and a peer reviewed field study report saying that it didn't always last a month. At that time, the commercial product label suggested 60 days. I complained about it then, and I can't find that 5 year WHO document now. I have found that WHO now says to put it in the drinking water which the US EPA forbids, apparently because many municipal water supply users depend on there being no bacteria in it. BTI is not a strain on immunocompromised mammals, fish, or birds, but it does make slimy water when any growth media are mixed in. EllenCT (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone have a graph of how the area of the key colors on the map here have changed over time? EllenCT (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo, do you find any of this compelling? I don't care whether you find it bemusing, (I sure do) and who in their right mind wouldn't find this annoying? If, however, you find either of the above topics unappealing, then let me know whether you think Dab-on's (magic marker format) sunblock applicator size is more or less compelling and appealing (in terms of generating endowment revenue and improving the encyclopedia) than [4], [5], and [6]. If neither, how do you feel about organ banking? Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/business/mylan-to-offer-a-generic-epipen-at-half-the-price.html EllenCT (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Ellen, I'd venture to say the reason you've yet to get a response from Jimbo is due to the fact that it is near impossible to deduce what you're trying to say here. At least I know I'm lost and I doubt I'm alone. You've meandered through a bunch of seemingly disconnected points. I'd suggest you put forth a clear premise and asked a definitive question about it. Capeo (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

If Jimbo thinks the questions are unclear, I know he is capable of saying so. It does not surprise me that they require thought. I would not bother Jimbo with questions that can be easily answered by others. I have more examples if they are needed. EllenCT (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

To answer this as best I can: I think that we should report clearly what is reported in reliable sources. I don't think ethical considerations generally ever point in the direction of a lessening of standards as the right way forward, and indeed that kind of approach leads us down some very questionable paths. "Big pharma controls all the medical journals, therefore no wonder homeopathy is dismissed in them."

At the same time, I think it is valid to pay attention to the needs of readers, and that good editorial judgment can of course lead us to a legitimate desire to report on economic/patent situations.

Let me give an example - one that we may report on well, or not, I don't know at the moment. There has recently been a lot of news about the surge in price of EpiPen. There has been a significant debate in the media about the cause of this and what the public policy implications might be, ranging from "markets are bad and drug companies are greedy bastards" to "regulators are captured in a variety of ways by existing players in a way that interferes with the market and drug companies are greedy bastards". Let's please not discuss those views right this very moment, as we are all aware of how they should be reported on in Wikipedia (i.e. quality discussion of various perspectives so that a reader may understand the debate).

Instead, I want to focus on a question that I, as a reader, might have. What are the alternatives to EpiPen which are in the market, if any, and how much do they cost? This is possibly not something that will be found in peer reviewed academic literature (although it will surely be informed by it) because that's not the kind of thing that is always covered in such journals. But I bet it is covered in some of the more serious media about the issue. And it's something that I, as a reader, want to know. (A family member needs EpiPen and while they can afford it (with some pain!), I am curious to know if there are alternatives and what they cost.)

What is my point here? My point is that NPOV reporting on what readers want to know can very well incorporate information about patent status, etc. I have not reviewed any of the literature you mention, but experience with Chantix (or whatever drug you meant) is relevant and interesting. I say report on it, neutrally, and not with the foregone conclusion that it's the solution to the problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Sum of all human knowledge

I believe I read somewhere that you believe that Wikipedia should act as the sum of all human knowledge. I tend to agree strongly with that statement. Judging by the surprising prevalence of deletionists on Wikipedia, wikipedia seems to be heading in the opposite direction of that sentiment. I believe that one way we could disseminate the sentiment we both share is by underpinning it somewhere. I was thinking perhaps wikipedia's mission statement, some policy or wikipedia's slogan. Any thoughts on that? Pwolit iets (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I think we get it wrong on some things, and we get it right on others. Let me give a couple of examples just to weigh up a comparison. Boxxy is a YouTube personality who briefly became a sensation in those circles where such things are exciting. Emotiv, Inc. is a company which has been written up in numerous reliable sources and a submission from them was declined. Now, I have no very strong view on whether we should have both of those, or neither of those, but I do question whether we should have one and not the other.

Of course inconsistency is not always such a terrible problem, since we can always fix it. And there's no practical way to impose consistency since so many people are making so many judgment calls all the time.

Bottom line: I don't think there is a fundamental problem with "deletionism" in general, even if I might tend to be more inclusionist than some.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I do. When people discriminate against articles on a given topic, ignoring reliable sources on it and just voting delete because they don't like it or seeing that an article is too short and undeveloped and opting for the deletionist route instead of expanding it then that's certainly a fundamental problem if we're trying to build a comprehensive encyclopedia. I see this problem all too often at AFD, and we lose dozens of actually notable articles every day because people are not willing to spend the time looking for sources and cleaning them up/improving them. Deletionism should be based on "Is the article notable or not" to be a credible option on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm tolerant with new articles and don't rush to nominate for deletion unless the article is obvious spam. However, Wikipedia does not need to have individual articles about everything, when in some cases mentioning them in an existing article is enough.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of the two of you on this, I think, but one thing I'm always interested in is examples rather than generalities. Dr Blofeld, you mentioned that we "lose dozens of actually notable articles every day because people are unwilling to spend the time..." That's a pretty specific claim: dozens. That would mean at least 24. Allowing for a bit of casual speaking and hype, let's say you meant 10 a day. Can you pick a day and show me 10 deletions that are obviously wrong?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

For most readers the articles are the way that they find anything. Categories (IME) are only used by advanced readers/editors. There is therefore a valuable role for the stub article which will never be expanded, cited and converted into a GA, but which gives half-a-dozen lines of explanation and sends the reader (remember WP:RF) to the main article if he is interested. It's also worth an occasional reread of WP:BLUE, particularly section 4; the key fact being that citations are required for "counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged", not for every simple statement. So, sorry Ian, we do need articles about everything, even if some are stubs or redirects.

Let me bring up a classic example from a very old discussion of this matter in German Wikipedia. Do we need an article on the rear lugnut of Uli Fuchs' bicycle? Uli was a prominent participant in the discussion. The point is that there is no reasonable basis for saying that we need an article on literally everything, even when the rest of your argument sounds perfectly plausible to me - that stubs serve a useful purpose even if they are destined to remain stubs.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps not dozens a day Jimmy, but in a week we do lose quite a few notable articles, often really inadequate articles or ones which look like advertising which get deleted because people don't research and assess them properly. I'm speaking from experience on this because I've often witnessed multiple delete votes on a poorly written/developed article and have then expanded and researched it myself and then suddenly people are changing to keep. Many go through and don't get anybody trying to salvage them so they're taken at face value. AFD results are dictated by those people commenting, not what the actual coverage is in reliable sources, so a lot get overlooked, even if relisted. A lot of non notable crap is certainly created though, don't get me wrong, but often rooting out the notable from the non notable is tricky when the quality is very poor or the articles riddled with bias/dubious claims and sourcing. Perhaps somebody should do a test sometime, select 100 recently deleted articles and check to see how many of them might actually be notable if properly researched and written...♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

As an avid reader of wikipedia I can certify that Blofeld's sentiment is 100% correct. Unfortunately, there are way too many deletionists on Wikipedia. Something has to be done; amend the mission statement, amend the slogan, or amend a policy. Anything. The fundamental problem is there seem to be disagreement on the very purpose of wikipedia. Another possible solution is to somehow repudiate against the wikipedia culture of widespread antipathy towards stubs. Stubs should be okay. Pwolit iets (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Jimbo that in cases where we get a lot of spam like companies and MySpace type bands, then leaning towards deletionism is sometimes healthy, but generally it needs to be done responsibly on here, and in a lot of cases it isn't, a lot of people voting to delete don't put in the time to really research inadequate articles so they place delete tags on them or take them to AFD. And I think it's something which can quite easily be judged, either an article has decent sources to warrant inclsion here or it doesn't. But that doesn't stop people repeatedly nominating articles for deletion with hundreds of hits in google books which they conveniently ignore when it suits them, so that was more my point.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Over the years I've indulged in 'deletion rescue' of articles I have no interest in because a quick Google has found worthy refs. I'd love to see a system that marked down deletionists (a cumulative score of points against) for not doing those basic tasks before demanding removal. Just as I'd like to see any article on a business restricted to talk page request edits only to avoid the promotional 'business directory' Wikipedia is rapidly becoming. I can only dream... AnonNep (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• I ran an unscientific test in April 2015 to see how four short new articles on valid subjects by a new user would be received. They all got nominated for deletion right away. See User:Bymatth2/New article test and the very long resulting discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 121#Discouraging biting the newbies. I suppose an article that is wrongly deleted can always be recreated, but a bad deletion decision may lose us a potential contributor. Plus it take a lot of confidence to recreate a deleted article. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Ralph Biasi is the perfect example of where irresponsible deletionism is a huge site problem. Such an article should never be a deletion candidate if properly checked, but you can at least see why it got nominated. I think there's two types of deletionism really, constructive and destructive. Constructive is where the deleter actually checks the subject first and scouts for sources and then helps protect the site from spam or coverage of unreasonable subjects. Destructive is where the deleter is lazy and cannot be bothered to research the subject and takes articles at face value. Unfortunately the latter is the most dominant on here, and why deletionism is a major site problem and a threat to building a comprehensive encyclopedia. I'm sure Jimbo was thinking more of the constructive deletionism in terms of reducing redundant articles and spam with his above statement.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that deletionism is a problem. A current example is Tomasz Zan, a prominent figure in Polish Romanticism, whose article was recently nominated for deletion, with the first editor commenting in the discussion supporting deletion, despite it being obvious from the sources found by a simple Google Books search that the subject is notable. Such actions can be just as disruptive as much of the vandalism that we see here, but no action ever seems to be taken against the perpetrators.

I suspect, however, that Pwolit iets' motives for fishing for agreement here concern that editor's posts immediately prior to coming here, which support the contention that we can keep articles about pornographic actors even when they are sourced only to pornography web sites, which clearly don't come up to the standards of reliability and neutrality demanded by our policies on verifiability, neutral point of view and biographies of living persons. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Well but isn't the place to press this point at WP:GNG (the General Notability Guideline)? I recently felt compelled to vote to delete a video game. It's not a matter of being a deletionist or inclusionist (except for borderline cases) but of what our standards say. The video game only had one review on line. There were other refs sufficient to show that the entity exists and its publisher and publication date. I felt that by our standards that wasn't enough, since WP:GNG uses the plural ("sources"). My personal feeling was "enh, it'd be OK to keep this article" but are we supposed to vote in this stuff purely on our personal opinion? (Sure WP:IAR, and I use and advocate WP:IAR a lot, but invoking it all the time is saying the rules and guidelines that we've hammered out are of little worth, which is a two-edged sword.)

Going to WP:GNG and simply changing significant coverage in reliable sources to significant coverage in a reliable source would make a huge difference here. I don't know if this would pass or should, but maybe. Herostratus (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

My point wasn't that we shouldn't support deletion of articles on subjects that don't meet our standards - I don't keep a running count but I think I've probably called for deletion more often than keeping in recent deletion discussions - but that we shouldn't put up with people who call for deletion of articles without even bothering to make simple checks as to whether the subject meets our standards. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is wrong to require two reliable sources. The problem with having just one is that if you're regurgitating a single source into an article, that is already very close to plagiarism and already relying on one source alone not to make a mistake. Most inappropriate deletions occur despite many reliable sources having been cited, and commonly they misquote policy knowingly. There must be a hundred thousand articles where someone has brandished "WP:NOTNEWS" to mean "Wikipedia must remain out of date" while making sure to betray no hint of ever having read what that policy says. Another problem is when people discount that something can be a reliable source - such as the porn example above - simply out of bias. I'm sure there are some people who edit resources about porn with more loving attention than the people who keep databases of exoplanets, and they deserve to be covered in encyclopedic terms if our editors want to cover them. Wnt (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

When people talk about excessive deletionism, they usually have in mind a particular type of article. They are not general concepts: they refer to including more or less material in a particular field. Each of us has a particular field in mind here. At present, I, like Jimbo, have primarily deletion focus these days on promotional articles about people and organizations. But I do not oppose such articles because of the lack of notability, but rather want to use notability rules as one tool for removing the promotionalism Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I also think that the subject-specific notability guidelines are a major problem. WP:GNG references back to core policy: are there sufficient reliable sources that we can write a verifiably neutral article? Once you start box-ticking you will inevitable end up with articles on genuinely notable sujects whihc don't tick the right boxes, and subjects which tick the boxes despite there being no substantive sources. I think we should burn the lot of them and just have GNG. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think subjects that are genuinely notable would be able to satisfy GNG without having to tick any special boxes, but I agree otherwise. The SNGs add unneeded complexity and distraction: I saw a recent AFD about a pornographic performer's biography devolve into arguments over whether or not a specific award met PORNBIO, which had little to do with the subject's notability. AFD should be about looking at the available coverage and pointing to specific sources and saying, These are reliable and, taken together, actually cover the subject in depth, so someone could actually write a useful, balanced, reliable article at some point.

Do you have an opinion on the "schools compromise"? Many of the regulars in school-related AFDs have adopted the view, contrary to WP:NSCHOOLS, that secondary schools are per se notable whenever they can be shown to exist (some require that they be accredited as well). We now have articles like Eden English Boarding High School, where, even after two contentious, well-attended rounds at AFD, the only source anyone could locate was a brief entry from a government database. Rebbing 22:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Does deletion help? ----Moxy (talk) 06:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Appreciating the lively discussion here. Regarding AfD, the use of deletion sorting can be useful to balance matters a bit, because it serves to draw-in users interested in specific topical areas. Such users may sometimes provide more detailed guideline- and policy-based arguments and rationales, which significantly benefits the overall quality of AfD discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess the lively discussion ended... North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the deletionist notability issue is relatively small compared to what WP:NOTHOWTO does to discretionary noteworthiness in articles linked from Hygiene. EllenCT (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jimmy! Good to see you're still active on this page. My two cents: Deletionism is out of control. You asked for examples. I'll tell you a while ago there was a guy running around deleting all the articles about battery types, e.g. AA battery, Lantern battery, CR2032 battery. It was an epic battle just to get that guy to stop. Articles about businesses are a favorite target of deletionists, e.g. Jiffy Lube, Quaker State. I'm not even going obscure here. Just giving you famous names that have barely been able to find a home on Wikipedia. I have a list. It's a little out of date but gives you an idea the topics Wikipedia has been missing encyc:Category:Not in Wikipedia.

Most of the time it's not outright deletion that's the problem. It's a subtle drive to push everything into larger articles, and deny it any room to breathe and grow. It's the bias against everyday objects, things where millions of units have been sold around the world, yet we keep articles about imaginary robot weapons just because the Wikipedians like them. We've got Psyco Gundam but not Polypropylene capacitor or Rheostat. We have Mega-City One but no Guitar strings.

The fact that most Wikipedians can no longer even see the problem is a huge problem in itself. I hope you can help raise awareness. Sole Flounder (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I find no traces of deletion discussions for the battery article examples offered by User:Sole Flounder, and the three non-battery examples are just articles that are yet to be written, just like millions of others. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 08:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I expect Sole Founder had in mind edits such as this and this. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. I wasn't really interested in singling this particular individual out, but you get the picture. I'll throw out another example: Clover honey. It's a normal, everyday item that many Wikipedians might consider boring. However, I guarantee the people who exchange millions of dollars making and consuming this product think it is quite important. In addition to economic importance, studies have been done about how different species of bees interact with the clover plants. It could be a fascinating article. However when I tried to start it here on December 14, 2009, it was redirected four minutes later to Honey#Monofloral. Sole Flounder (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, that was in 2009. I don't think many editors would try that today. From my impression, deletion discussions have moved towards the inclusionist side of things, with just in my own recent editing history a river being kept that provably does not exist. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright I restarted Clover honey and we'll see if the deletionists swarm in to turn it back into a redirect. Sole Flounder (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It'd be nice if there was more than 2002-level work put into it... Carrite (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You mock, but this is how wikis are built. You don't get a finished product right out of the gate, or ever, really. Sole Flounder (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

So whats the solution to the out of control deletionism and its negative byproducts, such as discouraging newbies? Pwolit iets (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no such thing as out of control deletionism. That's why there is no need for a solution. --Pgallert (talk) 12:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe that deletionism and inclusionism are dependant on the subvject. Geography and derivatives such as urban areas, sport, Abrahamic religions, and organisms lean towards inclusionism. The majority of other subjects lean quite heavily towards deletionism, especially if they are stubs. Im not necessarily blaming deletionists; it could simply be that the bars have been set too high. Pwolit iets (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no easy solution, but a start would be if new articles that are not obviously vandalism were given more than a few hours before they are blanked and redirected. It takes time to learn about a subject, get sources together, and get other writers interested. Now Clover honey is taking off, but it needed an effort, one that a new user wouldn't have done. As an experiment I just started Buckwheat honey. It was blanked and redirected within hours. Meanwhile Wikipedia has Buckwheat whisky and Buckwheat pancake, not to mention topics of extremely limited interest like Bodacious Space Pirates, but this guy thinks an instant blank and redirect is the way to go, because the predominant attitude here is to delete the boring, uncool things and he feels secure. Sole Flounder (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Content creators are among the most important contributors to this website. It is also among the most difficult tasks to shoulder on this website. Yet such vital and attentative effort is often rewarded with destruction. Pwolit iets (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Starting a bare bones stub like Buckwheat honey and then deliberately not expanding on it to see what would happen as an experiment, could be seen as rather WP:POINTy. To then go on to say that "this guy" (User:Rebbing) blanks the article just to feel secure, is a baseless personal attack. Also, why do you say Bodacious Space Pirates is "of extremely limited interest"? What do you base that assessment on? You seem to compare it unfavorably to your stub experiment Buckwheat honey, which is ridiculous.--Atlan (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Atlan, you're looking too closely into specific details and missing the broader picture. if such redirects happened once in a while, its no big deal but everyday we get dozens of possible articles being redirected. My question is; whats the haste? Why not wait at least a month if other more experienced editors can improve upon it? Why not tag it instead and wait it out. Deletionists should know it takes serious effort and time to find sources, to write etc. Especially if like me you're computer runs slowly and your router cuts frequently. Pwolit iets (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Completely agreed about new editors, but more experienced ones should know better than to stick something in mainspace that has a chance of being deleted or redirected whether that action is correct or not. Write it in a sandbox and move it across when it's suitable. In my experience (and speaking as someone who has closed hundreds of AfDs) there is very little "deletionism", the vast majority is poorly written or non-notable articles. Black Kite (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is not necessarily about deletion discussions. What about redirects, which by definition the broader community cannot give an exhortation on, unless you happened to have that page on your watchlist (something that is unlikely if the page is new), or you are an incessant insomniac that views recent changes each waking hour. Pwolit iets (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow. I spent about ten minutes Googling and looking through my campus library's electronic journals trying to find anything meaningful about buckwheat honey, but there was nothing worth mentioning, so I redirected the stub to a more useful topic. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the article you wrote told the reader nothing she could would not have guessed from the title: "Buckwheat honey is a robust, dark honey made by honeybees who feed on buckwheat." Even Urban Dictionary is usually more informative than that. If you wanted to work on this article, you could have created it in draft or user space; Wikipedia is not for collecting your idle thoughts until you get around to expanding them. And, draft or not, I can't imagine why you bothered to submit a bare fourteen-word sentence for preservation. Do you not have scratch paper?

Your suggestion that I redirected your masterpiece of a sentence to feed my ego is mistaken. Believe it or not, most serious contributors are here to help the project, which occasionally includes taking out the trash. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but that doesn't mean you walk on water. Show some respect. By analogy: Firefox is an open source project to which anyone can contribute, but, if you made a pull request for something this worthless, you would be summarily rejected and mocked. Also, it's "she" to you, kid. Rebbing 15:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

ha ha good one. At any rate, you must be aware that most wiki articles originally started in mainspace. I reject this whole idea that articles must be well-developed before we slap them up where Google can see them. The fact that you weren't able to find good information about buckwheat honey means only that you're an ineffective researcher, not that the information is not out there.

Pwolit iets has it right. There really is no need for such haste. Maybe you, Rebbing, could get yourself a piece of scratch paper and write yourself a note to recheck stubs in a few weeks to see if they're getting anywhere, rather than disrupting content creators when they're trying to work. Sole Flounder (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

A fourteen-word sentence with no references is not "work" deserving of uninterrupted quiet. It's a scrap. You are not Michelangelo. Even the worthless scraps I keep in my user space are more encyclopedic and reflect more effort than your sentence.

I may be an ineffective researcher, and it's possible that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere between the orbits of Mars and Earth, but, as you wrote the article, it's on you to find sources and write content to expand it. Rebbing 16:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You've got it wrong. I am a wiki Michelangelo. Many of the rudimentary stubs I've created have gone on to become amazing articles, filled with valuable content. I have the community to thank for most of it, but that's how we work as a group. If everyone is squirreled away in their own user spaces trying to be a perfectionist, the wiki doesn't get built. Sole Flounder (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

"Many"? I see only four article-space creations (link), of which Clover honey is the only other one worth mentioning. That said, your efforts were enough to get Buckwheat honey expanded into a worthwhile stub thanks to Andrew Davidson. Rebbing 18:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I mothballed my old account when I started the Sole Flounder user name. I really go back to 2006. Sole Flounder (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The notion that a brand-new article should be deleted because it sounds like a dicdef is nonsense and it questions my confidence in Rebbing's competence in judging article retention. By that logic we ought to purge wikipedia of at least hundreds of thousands of articles since they started as a single sentence. Better yet, we could simply get rid of stubs altogether and demand every article be at least 3 paragraphs long! Pwolit iets (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Here's another fresh example. I happened to notice the topic sports engineering being speedily deleted. That was for a copyvio, which is fair enough, but we obviously still needed a stub about the topic and so I created one. Yesterday, I was surprised to find that being nominated for deletion too. Not much discussion should be required to settle this but so far this has wasted the time of several other editors besides myself and the discussion is still open... Andrew D. (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I think Rebbing's post above reflects an unfortunate attitude on wikipedia: the blatant disrespect towards content creators; in a nutshell, she thinks they ought to do all the hard work, on her timetable! Pwolit iets (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I have the utmost respect for content creators, but creating silly redirects, unconstructively splitting articles, adding Wiktionary links to articles, and complaining is not content creation. Rebbing 16:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree Sports engineering is a great idea for an article. It is exhausting having to justify content creation every step of the way. Deletionism is a real problem. Sole Flounder (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

One way we could alleviate problems in deletionism such as rapid-fire nominations, reckless redirecting, unresearched/lazy deletions, politically-motivated deletions etc. is by allocating some editorial functions to staff at WMF. To alleviate controversiality related to paid editing we could instead of paying purely editors, pay editors who are simultaneously also working (especially part-time) in tech/law/finance-related functions. Its a win-win. They go from part-time work to fulltime, wikipedia gets competent reviewers, and content creators are no longer treated with contempt. Pwolit iets (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I dunno that would be a major change. I was thinking more along the lines of acknowledging that there is a problem, and rewriting some of the policies that content destroyers are using as weapons. Sole Flounder (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Pwolit iets, I agree that there is a problem, but allocating editorial functions to WMF staff is pretty well the worst possible way to fix it. If WMF staff edited as part of their jobs they would inevitably become a higher caste of editors whose judgement couldn't be questioned, which would make the situation worse, not better. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@User:Rebbing, actions speak louder than words. Pwolit iets (talk) 11:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with much of this, but we should be careful not to go too far. WP:GNG is one of Wikipedia's best written policies, because it's relatively clear and relatively easy to apply. I pushed clover honey to a point where I think it is above the level in that policy: ("Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.") If the same is done with buckwheat honey it should be kept. Any shorter stub than that is an invitation to do something, and hopefully the path preferred by an editor should be to get it above the GNG level, but if not, it isn't really something I can fault.

The biggest issues we have are the illegitimate applications of policies by people who know or should know better: people who say articles should be rejected because they fail special criteria, even though the criteria they cite explicitly say the GNG is enough to keep them. People who say "WP:NOTNEWS" means to treat news differently from other encyclopedic information, by deleting it or at least ensuring we don't include enough information to compete with a commercial news archive service. People who cite essays or talk about "cruft" with no real policy basis at all. The solution here seems pretty straightforward, if not easy: we need more people to insist on correct policy, and we should kill some perennially incorrectly interpreted policy shortcuts altogether because they are being used by people who never read what they link to.

The other issue is with people who, day in and day out, spend their time voting to delete, delete, delete. We know from Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia that some such people have been corrupt. Maybe the rest simply enjoy tearing down other people's work to feel better than them. The solution here should be pretty easy, if not straightforward: we need some kind of quota system to keep a few people from dominating everything. Problem being, the most malicious ones (as in Orangemoody) are socks. So what we really need is a quorum of people involved who are not career deletionists in the worst sense of the phrase - a jury selected at random or at least recruited from the pool of people who spend most of their time building articles. Exactly how to do that seems tricky to decide, but once enacted it seems easy to enforce. Wnt (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The policies need some work. It shouldn't be so easy to misinterpret them. There are too many, and they are too wordy. This is a wiki encyclopedia, and it should be a no-brainer that anyone can write a new article and that other users should give them a real chance to do it. At no point did the community agree that articles must be created in "draft space" or offline or any other such nonsense, yet that seems to be the perception. What makes Wikipedia grow is when articles are created in mainspace, where other Wikipedians can see them and join in. The prevailing deletionist attitude these days is stifling one of the core strengths of the wiki, which was its tremendous power to generate content about obscure topics. Sole Flounder (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You must not have many obscure articles on your watchlist. Most receive very little attention—not even basic proofreading or expanding with easily-accessible material. Serious copy-editing and proper fact-checking are even rarer. Surprisingly, the same often goes for widely-read articles that aren't about hot topics. Rebbing 01:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Rebbing, derogatory comments to describe content-creators such as "bottom-of-the-barrel", your voting record on AfD where each time it doesn't match the result it is a delete vote resulting in a keep (never the other way round), your profusion of redirects and various comments on various threads all indicate that you are yourself a deletionist. Pwolit iets (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not say that content creators are "bottom-of-the-barrel"; I used that descriptor to distinguish sub-par editors from useful contributors. Curiously, despite your efforts to paint me as opposing content creators, I have done far more of it than you. Also, I have no problem being labeled a deletionist: I call it taking out the trash; it's something that distinguishes Wikipedia from Urban Dictionary. Garbage duty is a minor part of my work here, along with proofreading and copy-editing, adding information, and fact-checking. When you've amassed a record that consists of more than unhelpful article splits, trivial additions, ludicrous redirects, and complaining, I might take your opinions on this matter seriously. Rebbing 03:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Taking out the trash? You have voted delete on multiple AfD's on degree awarding institutions, resulting in even speedy keeps! By the way, this thread is about deletionism, how it affects newbies, and how to solve it. Its not a slinging match. Pwolit iets (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yup. That's because our guidelines say that even degree-awarding institutions must have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to be suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If such institutions should always be included, then NSCHOOLS and ORGSIG should be amended accordingly. The AFD that closed as speedy keep was actually not eligible. See SKCRIT. Moreover, if you bothered to read my vote or look at the article, you would have noticed that I took the time to improve it before voting, and my vote was nuanced and fairly considered the article and applied our guidelines. If you're so concerned about this, why don't you pick up a shovel and help improve new articles yourself? At the very least, please familiarize yourself with the new pages patroller information page before criticizing volunteers for doing their jobs. Thank you. Rebbing 04:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

A good example, given the venue here, of the wiki process at work in mainspace to develop an initially very short article on a topic that might appear obscure to many people is Mzoli's. I have no doubt that its speedy deletion at birth would not have been overturned if it had been created by a less illustrious editor. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I truly believe deletionists like Rebbing view new articles as a problem, not an opportunity. The only reason they stick around is because it's fun for them to pick on the content creators. e.g. this insincere, needling post. Mzoli's is ancient history at this point, but it goes to show that a borderline article which is given a little bit of time and effort can turn into something worthwhile. I'd much rather see a thousand articles on places like Mzoli's than one more about imaginary robot weapons or random pro athletes. There's room for everything though. Sole Flounder (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

So deletionists are only around to troll the content creators? That's a massive assumption of bad faith. Besides, the two terms are not mutually exclusive. One can create content and maintain a high threshold for inclusion at the same time. Also, there is a lot of gray area between deletionist and inclusionist. I consider myself neither, but apparently it's all black and white to you. The Brave Inclusionists vs Evil Deletionists idea you subscibe to is silly and whatever good point you make gets lost in that divisive nonsense.--Atlan (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Atlan, it is interesting how you overlook the fact that Rebbing casually self-describes as a deletionist despite there currently being around half a dozen threads open at various places discussing the peculiarities of deletionism, including two (or three) on WP:AN/I. As for the question if there are deletionists who are there just to troll? ---> Yes. Pwolit iets (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not overlooking anything. Sole Flounder says deletionists (i.e. all of them) only stick around to annoy the content creators. That statement is not supported by the evidence provided. Rebbing is only one person and she doesn't represent the entire deletionist community (nor do I believe she is trolling in the first place). I can't offer any opinion on your vague reference to "half a dozen threads" about deletionism. --Atlan (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's not black and white. There is a little deletionist in all of us. Hardly anyone really wants a biography on every living person, for example. Sole Flounder (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

My point about the half-a-dozen threads is that all the discussions indicate that a substantial chunk of editors acknowledge a problem with a deletionism culture on Wikipedia. Rebbing's dismissive tone above feels to me like she's disdainful of our concerns. Pwolit iets (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is another contentious topic

• Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Proposed_Change_to_PORNBIO

Regarding biases which exist on Wikipedia, here is a clear one. Many are discouraged by the fact that an encyclopedia covers porn which is from what I gather the crux of the argument. I believe it should as pornography is one of the most pervasive genres in culture, as it stands WP:PORNBIO is set way higher than WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG in general. We require performers to win an award or be nominated in the Hall of Fame (apparently no in genre sources are allowed either). Now there are arguments to further tighten our already restrictive requirements. I do not know where you stand on this subject, but the editor Spartaz who has a long history of fighting porn has come out of retirement to debate. He has requested assistance Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Need_a_Panel_of_Admins_to_close_a_contentious_discussion, I believe there is a general bias which academics fight to decided what "belongs" on this encyclopedia, many have a distaste for fringe and sexology, but the most of all, porn. Where is your opinion, I hope you will participate as a closer for or against. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 08:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually the dispute is much more mundane. Porn fans have created a subject-specific notability guideline which leads to friction because articles that meet their criteria can still not be properly sourced per WP:BLP. The best solution is to delete all subject-specific notability guidelines and defer in all cases to WP:GNG, which has the tremendous advantage of being rooted in policy rather than in a desire to create a directory of things that fans like. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

PORNBIO is only one of the subject-specific notability guidelines which badly needs tightening up - some are arguably worse; take WP:NFOOTY for example, where a player who has played 30 seconds of league football for a professional club becomes automatically notable (and bear in mind, for example, there are over 100 fully professional clubs in England alone), regardless of the actual coverage they have received. And I say that as a football fan. Black Kite (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we should evaluate in most cases without any regard to the nature of the underlying subject matter - which isn't the same thing as saying we shouldn't have subject-area guidelines. Here's an example - we have extensive listings for members of the UK hereditary aristocracy. Many of these are stubs and are likely to remain so, because other than being part of a long chain of people who have inherited the title, these people aren't particularly notable and not a lot else is known about them. I think that's fine, although I would in some cases avoid creating entries for living people who aren't notable other than for the title - on BLP grounds.

The reason we should have these stubs is for completeness in an area where the lineage matters. People may often click through each and every person who has inherited the title. And for the ones who are long deceased, little harm can come of it.

Note that I say this completely without reference to whether or not I *like* the hereditary aristocrats. That actual subject matter opinion has little bearing on the question.

Similarly, our decisions about PORNBIO should have virtually nothing to do with whether or not someone likes the underlying subject matter or not. But BLP issues are extremely important here. There are difficult questions around outing people whose real names are not generally publicly known, for example. There is often a paucity of reliable sources. (There's a fair amount of kayfabe to contend with in fake porn bios. My view is that for all these reasons we should be quite strict with notability guidelines in this area.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Special guidelines invite all kinds of problems, especially around BLPs. If we do not have substantial reliable independent sources about the person, then we can't write a verifiably neuutral biography. And the kayfabe issue is also entirely pertinent: the sources preferred in porn bios on Wikipedia are often entirely in-universe. Guy (Help!) 15:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by in-universe @JzG:? Are you suggesting AVN and Hustler are unreliable because they are industry associates? You are aware these publications are often completely independent from the subject they are covering. Suggesting they cannot be used is the same as saying ESPN or theScore is unreliable for sports because they are "in-universe". Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

See Jimbo's link to kayfabe (a wrestling term). Often adult entertainers persona's are wildly at odds with their actual lifestyle circumstances. The most that could be accused of say ESPN is that it might report a sportsman/woman as single when they have a partner. It doesnt enable and complicitly engage in furthering sportspeoples entirely madeup 'character'. David Beckham is still David Beckham, even when reported in the press. Adult film stars 'role' is treated is the person. An actor playing a role, playing a role. Which is why it is a massive BLP headache. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Only in death does duty end, this could easily be solved by simple editing list what films and awards the porn star has or been nominated for and that's it. I don't see how deletion is a better alternative. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

At this point the reality is, if it could, it would have by now. Its not. And like it or not, with BLP issues, the simplest (and preferred in most cases) way for dealing with issues that do not get resolved is removal. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see nobody has argued in that discussion for a tightening of the WP:PORNBIO criteria on the basis of any objection to the subject matter, but on the basis of core policies such as WP:V, WP:NPOV and, most importantly, WP:BLP. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Tell me if I am missing something here, I agree with what Jimbo has pointed out BLP issues are extremely important here and unlike hereditary aristocrats this could lead to harm, for example back in 2006 we had articles on Naughty Allie and Maya Ababadjani the latter making a cameo in a film with having a history of sexual abuse and the former a minor porn star neither of which pass GNG, but did pass WP:PORNBIO at the time. I fully agree with their removal from the encyclopedia. However the current guidelines look like this:

1. Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration.
2. Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or being a member of an industry hall of fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent.
3. Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.

Why does this genre require performers to win an award or be listed in the Hall of Fame to be notable? No other subject requires an award. As a result the bar is set much higher than what is required from GNG, we should include individual nominations as well, or just directly defer to ANYBIO. I agree that Naughty Allie and Maya Ababadjani clearly do not pass GNG, but porn star such as Sara Jay, Rachel Roxxx, Rachel Starr and Deauxma clearly do. Pornography is one of the most viewed genre's on the internet with 2.5% of users using the website LiveJasmin alone, I think that perhaps our guidelines are too exclusive. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

As I understand the guidelines, and from what I've seen at AFD, a subject that meets GNG is not limited by PORNBIO. The various notability guidelines aren't seen as increasingly restrictive, rather the opposite: meeting any of them suffices; the fact that a subject fails others, especially sub-guidelines like PORNBIO, is largely irrelevant. In practice, at least with biographies of pornographic performers nominated for deletion, it's far easier to meet PORNBIO with an award than it is to show significant coverage in reliable sources. Rebbing 14:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Sara Jay, Rachel Roxxx, Rachel Starr and Deauxma easily pass GNG and ANYBIO, but not PORNBIO due to lack of awards. And no, it is much easier to pass GNG than PORNBIO. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Porn Bio is one of the most terrible cul de sacs of WP. Typically they are vacuous blurbs around stage names, with virtually no actual biographical content, with great detail — generally unsourced — about sexual proclivities, often accompanied by a glossy photograph of dubious copyright status. The entire PORNBIO SNG needs to be deprecated and all but the very small handful capable of passing GNG should be deleted out of existence. Of course, there are a handful of hobbyists that would shriek to high heavens if that were ever to happen. The current proposed modification of the SNG is very, very small potatoes. Carrite (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

"Authentic generic" EpiPen and editor retention archived followups

Jimbo, your archiving happens so fast, I missed your question. The answer is at Consumer Reports, but even though that page describes an actual generic version of the EpiPen, it still sells for an absurd 4000%+ profit margin that Comcast's ISP division would envy. For similar reasons, the best smoking cessation pharmaceutical is practically unavailable in most of the developed world, the best mosquito abatement has been reduced to a tiny fraction of its original effectiveness in an attempt to try to sell more, the best sunscreen is absurdly time-consuming to apply, and the best antidepressant and cognitive enhancer -- exercise -- is not even mentioned in our articles on those (unless you count the third bullet in Nootropic#See also.)

You also missed my question: How do you feel about telling endowment donors that for every million dollars you raise, you'd give Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Hall of Fame a hundred dollars each? Not in terms of equity for their volunteer work, but as an editor retention effort? There's no way to measure it, so it would be purely a judgement call. My opinion is that it would be more effective than MoodBoxes, but only for a few years. MoodBoxes' effect can, however, be measured. EllenCT (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Exercise is mentioned at Depression and Management of depression as a method of treatment. It is obviously not mentioned at Antidepressant or Nootropics as those are articles about medical drugs. You might as well complain that 'staying inside' is not mentioned at Sunscreen. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

There's also a whole lot of "best" assumptions in there along with a hell of a lot more assumptions and plain non-facts. The effectiveness of BTI was never lowered. I looked up the original patents and products. It's exactly the same today as it ever was except now they have time release bricks that allow for less applications. It's also far from the "best" mosquito abatement product though it does have its place in an abatement regiment. Ellen posted the dengue fever outbreaks in Malaysia as some sort of evidence of... something. Except they does use BTI amongst other things because BTI is not usable in every situation. They are trying to duplicate Singapore's abatement system, that also uses BTI as part of it, but it's the socio-economics that make it much harder. Malaysia is largely poor and rural. A huge portion of the population experiences 100% exposure time to mosquitos. There's also short lived standing water across the entire country at any given time and theses mosquitos breed extraordinarily fast. They tested an intense weekly misting of BTI in some areas and it worked well, until they stopped it. The water systems refresh to fast. A single rain shower creates thousands of untreated spots of standing water. It's not economically viable to continuously spray down the entire country with BTI.

The Tabex situation is also misrepresented. A company is trying to bring to market in the West. Again, economically unviable. To have an adequate supply is going to require thousands of trees. Trees that take four years to even produce the chemical. Capeo (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

What are your sources for "the original patents and products ... exactly the same today as it ever was except now they have time release bricks that allow for less applications"? Dengue fever has returned to the U.S. after eradication, along with two other new mosquito-borne illnesses, just as it has increased in Malaysia. Here are more detailed US statistics. BTI is not a spray. The insecticide sprays show tolerance effects which BTI does not: compare PMID 18816269 and PMID 24686769 to PMID 20214764. Are you aware that most BTI abatement is transmitted by waterfowl prior to larvicidal action? What is your source for the suggestion that cytisine can not be easily synthesized? EllenCT (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Best mosquito abatement is heavy rain or hurricane: I have found that the "best mosquito abatement" seems to be a heavy rain storm which wipes out millions of active mosquitos for several days, such as a Hurricane Hermine might do with Florida Zika mosquitos. However, the new batch of hatching mosquitos in 3-4 days would be drawn to standing pools of water, to generate more mosquito babies. I'm not sure if we can find sources for that, or if the mosquitos-versus-storm subject is covered in other pages. For example, one of the horrific problems of Hurricane Katrina was the killing of tree leaves, a form of wind burn, that caused millions/trillions of leaves to drop along the eastern U.S. Gulf Coast in September 2005 and smother the ground vegetation to cause massive dead zones around large tree bases. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Are there any WP:MEDRS sources in agreement? I suggest that flooding increases mosquito habitats, which a consistent BTI application regime could easily address. EllenCT (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

https://consumerist.com/2016/09/01/heres-why-you-shouldnt-order-your-epipens-from-canada/ EllenCT (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Man, a hundred bucks for Editor of the Week? Isn't that kind of insulting? If you're gonna lowball, why not just a pack of smokes, an RC cola, and a moon pie? Herostratus (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

No, $100 per million of the $100 million endowment goal raised. Throw in a box of Tabex, a bottle of mosquito bits and a floppy sun hat. EllenCT (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

General RFC questions

Jimbo, do you think an RFC based on a diff asking which version is preferred is malformed? I note the rules say to strive to frame the question neutrally. Do you think if someone opens an RFC, and then gets topic banned because other people don't like the RFC, that is a valid reason to close the RFC? Suppose that happened, and the RFC author wants to have the RFC re-opened without appealing their topic ban. Would you be prepared to offer a writ of support in such cases? On a related note, do you agree with, "I interpret Plato’s rhetorical use of anonymity as a strategy designed to mitigate against the dangers of discipleship"? EllenCT (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

New article improvement drives

Check out the following new article improvement drives/contests. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge – aims to reach 10,000 article improvements for UK- and Ireland-related articles
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge – aims to reach 10,000 article improvements for Africa-related articles

The Signpost: 06 September 2016

• News and notes: AffCom still grappling with WMF Board's criteria for new chapters

• Special report: Olympics readership depended on language

• In the media: Librarians, Wikipedians, and a library of Wikipedia coverage

• WikiProject report: Watching Wikipedia

• Featured content: Entertainment, sport, and something else in-between

• Traffic report: From Phelps to Bolt to Reddit

• Technology report: Wikimedia mobile sites now don't load images if the user doesn't see them

• Recent research: Ethics of machine-created articles and fighting vandalism

• Blog: Upload of free photos from Swiss library underway

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

A mashup for you!

	Stromae/Coldplay - Formidable/Viva La Vida
	Hi Jimbo, what kind of music do you like? I enjoyed this work by Gio Giorgadzé. EllenCT (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

BOOK OF LIFE BEING PUT BACK TO SLEEP HELP

I don't know how to bring bible to life it's like the world birds snacth up any little hope — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:660:A8DA:81E8:C98B:FFDF:D049 (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to the birds in the Parable of the Sower.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

WP membership or IP editor?

Hello, Jimmy. I've been using Wikipedia as an IP editor for several years and, given that I have expertise in XML and other system development tools, have acquired a wide knowledge of the site's usages and I've taken the trouble to understand its policies, guidelines and various processes. I became semi-retired earlier this year and, with more time on my hands, I decided a few weeks ago to give membership a trial.

I think I've seen and done enough now to decide whether I should continue as a member or go back to using my IP address. I've drawn up a list of the pros and cons of membership, as I see them, and I hope you might find them useful. I know, by the way, that you have often spoken warmly of IP contributors (well, the majority of us) and I'm pleased that you appreciate the added value that people like me have provided over the years. Whether I could do the same using a long-term membership, I am not at all certain about and, given the nature of membership vis-à-vis the site's less welcome visitors, I seriously doubt that membership is the best option for someone like me.

May I put forward a recommendation? This is not an original idea, but something I have seen and heard on numerous occasions. While I entirely agree that "anyone can edit", why can't that basic ethos carry the very reasonable condition that "anyone with a valid e-mail address can edit"? If the e-mail address was mandatory, it would decimate vandalism (blocking an e-mail address is a much more powerful response than merely blocking an IP address) and very few bona fide editors would object to providing their e-mail address because it's a common requirement across the internet.

The greatest benefit you would gain from e-mail address login is an increase in the site's credibility. I have numerous contacts in academic spheres and they are unanimously adamant that Wikipedia breaches its own reliable source policy. They do not accept it is a valid, reliable or credible source and, I have been told, they never will as long as cranks and morons have free and unlimited access. Okay, most bad edits are rectified or reverted within a day or so, but what happens to the reader who is using that page in the interim? The "information" they glean during that window between good versions is useless and potentially harmful. You cannot have a reliable or credible source when people who are malicious, uninformed or simply careless are free to write whatever they want. Reverting it an hour later does not help the people who have read it during that hour.

The following are the pros and cons of membership as I see them:

Pros of membership

• IP address is hidden – great, but... When editing, the IP editor sees: "You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to a user name, among other benefits". Thus spake the source editor. Having a userid hides your IP address, which really doesn't matter to the overwhelming majority of IP editors. I could not care less that geolocation reveals I live in an English county with over 5.5 million inhabitants, as geolocation is imprecise and only gives an approximate location. My current IP geolocation is about 15 miles out, as it happens, though it has got the right county this time; my previous IP address geolocated to the neighbouring county, where 5 million people live. Assuming it's usually no problem having the IP address displayed, and if you should become worried about it or if someone is annoying you, all you have to do is switch the hub off and on to get another IP address within a minute or two while you make a cup of tea. You might then need to avoid a certain article for a while but there's always plenty more needing attention. Hiding the IP address is no big deal, really.
• Watchlist – certainly useful, but easily replaced by my own list in a text editor given that only a limited number of articles are being monitored. I always kept a list of the, say, twenty articles I wanted to monitor and just loaded it into a sandbox from where I could easily check any interim activity. Obviously, if you are one of those ultra-keen people who monitors a whole project rather than just a few articles of interest, then the watchlist is essential and you do need to be a member, but surely most editors focus on a limited portfolio.
• Navigation popups – these can be handy, but are not essential. They are actually a liability during edit if you are removing or changing a link: you get an annoying popup which lingers, delays your progress and can break your train of thought.
• Twinkle – yes, this is good if you intend to fight vandalism but you need to be a really dedicated member to do that and have admin aspirations: best to just quietly and politely revert stuff (and even then you can find yourself being harrassed). Twinkle is useful for placing tags on articles but, then again, I find that many of the options are iterative or don't adequately describe the problem, and it is best to just write "refimprove" at the top (they always need more references) and go to the talk page if a fuller explanation is necessary.
• Suppress banner and notice displays – yes, this is fine but they are easily and quickly switched off.
• HotCat – this is the one that really is useful and I see absolutely no reason why it should be limited to members. I would strongly recommend that HotCat is reclassified as a default on all article pages so that anyone including IP editors can use it. For the benefit of readers, ease of navigation is essential and good categorisation practice should be facilitated by provision of a tool that does the job quickly and efficiently. Any misuse can easily be reverted in the normal way.
• Purge option – useful button but the browser purges too, so it is superfluous.
• "Move" option – admittedly, this is very useful but I've found that you often cannot complete a rename because of existing redirects and double redirects, so you have to shout for an admin in any case. During my IP days, I rarely needed to rename an article and, when I did, it was always attended to.
• Edit semi-protected pages – this does save time if you really do need to edit one but I always found it easy enough to get help at the project forum if I spotted something that needed correcting; these pages are heavily edited and an IP editor is best advised to just read them and move on.
• E-mail – talk pages are fine for communication about articles or projects. There is no way I will allow someone to send me an e-mail in lieu of a talk page message. I would, of course, be happy to provide my e-mail address as part of login but that's the limit.
• Uploads – few IP editors would ever need to do this and images are a copyright minefield. A page of text is fine, you don't need a photo and I only add them if they already in the database (as I did recently to enhance an FL candidate).
• Replace the "new section" tab text with "+" – little things like that are "nice-to-haves".
• Display an assessment of an article's quality in its page header – again, a "nice-to-have" which saves a visit to the talk page, assuming you as an IP editor are actually bothered if an article is rated FA, GA, B, C, start or stub. I find that these "ratings" are invariably wrong, anyway. Numerous times, you find a two-liner which is rated "C-class"! The vast majority, of course, are either start-class stubs or stub-class starts.
• No CAPTCHA when you include a website citation in your edit – this removes a minor inconvenience (which any regular IP editor soon gets used to), so a small plus there.
• Article creation – this is certainly a plus but, to be honest, I rarely needed to create an article in my IP days and you can usually get it done quickly if it is necessary. I really don't see why an IP should not be able to create an article, given the efficiency of patrolling and the various BOT checks.
• Teahouse – yes, this is nice and cosy, I'm told, but I'd guess that most new members quickly find their own way.

Cons of membership

• Only one, as it happens, but it is HUGE. Having a userid hides your IP address (which is neither here nor there as discussed above) but leaves you vulnerable to attack and harrassment because, unlike an IP address, you can't change the userid. Some members are subject to constant harrassment. There is one I'm aware of in WP:FOOTY and it is completely undeserved as he is one of the best editors in the project. Even I, after only a short time as a member, have had a banned idiot trying to make trouble for me because I reverted two of his disruptive edits. If this individual chose to persist, how would I escape his attention as a member? Do I just put up with it and have it spoil my enjoyment, or do I go back to being an IP which was enjoyable 99% of the time?

You can change your ID. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be good if we could end constant harassment of people, so people can use a constant ID and still be free of harassment? Reduce the need t change the user ID by having policy enforced with real backbone? That seems to be the better solution to me than to sort of "force" people to "sort of sockpuppet" by changing ID's to avoid attacking bully elements. It's a huge problem on Wikipedia, in many subtle to blatant ways, and generally for a purpose of bullying a particular POV into articles and prevent good discussions on content to bring it to a NPOV state. SageRad (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Summary

All told, I have not seen any appreciable improvement in membership over IP editing. The main one is HotCat which should be freely available to everyone because it greatly facilitates categorisation changes and anything that encourages good categorisation must improve the reader experience because efficient and comprehensive navigation is vital in any menu-driven system (which, at core, Wikipedia is). The other benefits are, frankly, no big deal and are mostly "nice-to-haves". Some of them are time-savers, of course, but at the end of the day they are resolving problems that for the typical IP editor do not exist. The watchlist versus my text editor list is a good example, especially as the watchlist only shows the most recent change while going straight to the history page lists everything for that article.

The big issue is being unable to edit without being attacked or harrassed. The IP editor can escape this in a couple of minutes, though he might have to avoid a particular article for a few days. For the member who has attracted a stalker, there is always going to be the nagging doubt that if he writes this, he's going to have to remove some garbage soon afterwards and eventually have to waste time getting an admin to block the offender, protect the page, and so on and on and on he goes.

Having seen the persistent attacks being made on other editors, and given that I have already attracted a troublemaker myself, I have decided to abandon my membership and go back to being a happy and carefree IP editor. I would, however, appreciate the future use of HotCat. Thank you for your time. BoJó | talk UTC 10:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users

One huge reason for members wishing to hide their IP address is if it is traceable to an institution or employer; it is not then one in millions but one in a few hundred. It is also advantageous to have a common ID if you edit from multiple machines. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Timbo's Rule 12. Most vandalism is caused by anonymous IP editors. The only reason IP editing is allowed at all is that it makes vandalism easier to spot. (Feb. 2012)

Timbo's Rule 13. Since such a high percentage of anonymous IP editors are vandals, they are all treated like shit. Trying to make serious edits to Wikipedia as an IP editor is like blindly blundering through the countryside on the first day of hunting season dressed like a moose. (Feb. 2012) Carrite (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I've just been catfished!

Hello Jimmy, I thought you might like to hear an anecdote.

A couple of weeks ago I was cruising on Grindr and I came across a profile that really caught my eye...he plays rugby! I got to chatting with the guy and he sent me several photos showing his physique. Within 5 milliseconds of him sending the 4th photo I had decided that yep I definitely wanted to hook up with the guy. I got his address and I was at his door within 20 minutes! When he answered the door, I couldn't believe it! I'd just been catfished!

He was like 55 years old, didn't have a beer gut but a keg gut, and the rugby physique from the photos was nowhere to be seen. I immediately called him out on this, in a polite way, and it turns out the photos were of him, but were from 25 years ago! Like seriously! Catfished! I was out of there and down to the beat around the corner.

Which brings me to you Jimmy. I feel that you are somewhat catfishing people on Twitter. Look at your profile photo. It must be at least 10 years old! And looking at your recent photos I doubt you are ever again going to look like you do in that photo. Catfishing people is wrong Jimmy, please change your Twitter profile pic to a more recent example!

Thanking you in advance,

An unhappy catfishee. —Preceding undated comment added 14:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.8.159.140 (talk)

I'm calling Russavia... The Ukrainian geolocation was a nice touch. Carrite (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo has an inner beauty. I am unable to comment on any difficulties he might have in getting a root, but this probably doesn't concern - or interest - either of us. --Pete (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Never say never again: Anyone who wants to look young again should remember the plastic surgeon(s) of Joan Rivers, as in her 2010 photo at age 77. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is never fair to compare a professionally produced headshot with a snap taken at an event. I was just thinking about what recent photos I have, and I realized the most recent one is actually quite fun. I have never promised a rugby physique but having recently celebrated my 50th birthday, I'm reasonably pleased with how I'm holding up. Here is a cute rotating 3-D photograph taken 2 nights ago with my friend.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you think my editing style is a good way to neutralize Wikipedia articles?

Although Wikipedia does suggest asking admins, the Teahouse, Help Desk, Village Pump or some other places, I thought I could just appeal (just an expression) up the help ladder to the founder and owner yourself and ask you for some advice.

• Arkansas (yes, I did make a typo (slaveRY), but someone else could've fixed it)
• Little Rock, Arkansas (other people's edits are in between this)
• Louis Braille (someone said 'he is smart' and then I reverted it)
• Richard Nixon (I thought 'materiel' was a misspelling of 'material')
• etcetera.

Apparently many experienced editors and a few admins criticized me in many ways on my talk page such as:

• Leaving behind typos (If Dr. K thinks that 'materiel' is correct, how can it be correct if there is nothing stating whether it is written in American or British or other English? I always learned 'material'.)
• Leaving behind capitalization errors (slaveRY, as far as I know, I meant 'slavery')
• Leaving behind grammatical errors (he made a special visit to the school --> he visited to the school, but it was supposed to be the neutral and accurate 'he visited the school')
• Disrupting Wikipedia by constantly editing in the name of neutrality and verification.
• Removing things that are justified by sources. (but writing these statements in Wikipedia's voice ruins the neutrality)
• Altering the meanings of articles by pruning articles of what statements I think are non-neutral.
• Not improving the encyclopedia with my editing.
• John from Idegon once criticized me on my talk page for giving an experienced editor for advice just because I was a newcomer.
• Floquenbeam topic banning me. He doesn't seem to like me NPOVing articles. But I don't know what he topic banned me from.
• Blocked by Floquenbeam for trying to neutralize Richard Nixon's article. (He told me I was violating my topic ban, even though I didn't know what I was topic banned from)

Here's what I believe;

• Make sure to cite reliable sources
• Write from a neutral perspective
• Avoid puffery
• Avoid soapboxing
• Avoid advertising
• Don't write promotional material
• Don't use first or second person pronouns
• Don't write instructional material
• Don't write John doe is a well-known leader^[1] because 'well-known' is subjective and may introduce bias, Instead write that John Doe is included on the Acme Inc. Hall of Fame, where he is referred to as "[a] wonderful man and a well-known leader"^[1].
• Just write 'said', 'wrote', or 'according to'.
• Quotes must not be rid of such wording or bias, as quotes must be written in full.
• You can simplify on Simple English Wikipedia, but it would be absurd to try to simplify the wording in this regular English Wikipedia.
• Don't be a jerk
• Don't bite the newcomers

PS. If I'm topic banned from NPOVifying articles, then I think it was a stupid topic ban, because NPOV is one of Wikipedia's most important philosophies, it's one of the five pillars and "mind NPOV" is in the trifecta, although I hope it still says "don't be a jerk" instead of that D word... how can NPOVizing be considered disruption just because it rids the articles of biased statements that many editors agree with that seem to be ruining the neutrality of the article just by being written as if it were fact? --Turkeybutt (talk) 11:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a terrible place to ask for help.... do it on your own talk page. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hello, could you provide diffs of the topic ban? Was it instituted at WP:AN, WP:ANI or Somewhere else? Was it under Discretionary Sanctions authorized by an Arbitration Committee Case? Just trying to get some additional information so Jimbo Wales or other editors can have a bit more background on the issue? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 15:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It's here; while it looks like it was imposed unilaterally, I have no doubt at all that any community discussion would endorse it. (The entire talkpage up to that point is well worth a read if you want the background to this complaint; basically, what we have here is a single editor who believes everyone else on Wikipedia is wrong in their interpretation of "neutral" and insists everything be changed to comply with his own misinterpretation of the policy, which has understandably started to annoy a lot of people who have to clean up the mess.) ‑ Iridescent 15:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, massive CIR issues here. An indef will be needed if he does something like this again. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Iridescent thanks I was actually able to stumble upon it. And I have to agree that the community would likely endorse the topic ban. Turkeybutt JC The community likely would endorse the choice Floquenbeam made. I think you may need to take a step back, maybe with some mentoring the topic ban could be lifted. I know there are multiple editors willing to mentor new or inexperienced editors. And no amount of Wikilawyering is going to help. There are some CIR Issues that you should address. Like I said, I recommend seeking out an experienced editor to mentor you. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 16:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

ThePlatypusofDoom made an edit with diff at User:Turkeybutt JC. I reverted. diff. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

#EdCrunch in Moscow

"Основатель 'Википедии' прочитает лекцию в Москве" ("Founder of Wikipedia will make a prelection in Moscow", TASS news). There is some excitement at Russian Wikipedia on this occasion. Assuming a press conference besides the prelection itself, potential questions to you are being collected and discussed at our news forum. If it is of any use or interest, I or someone else could make some English overview of the most popular questions. --Neolexx (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe the best (perhaps too formal) translation of "прочитает лекцию" is "read a lecture", probably "give a lecture" is better here. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"read a lecture", right, that was first im my mind as well. I just thought to give some foreign-continental coloring to the title using British as an available paint :-) Maybe should not do it anymore. --Neolexx (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I quickly reviewed the questions/discussion at the link given. So far it looks like many of the discussions here (e.g.long and confusing questions) but 3 pop out.

• Why did the default size of images in RuWiki go from 200px to 250px?
  • Who is responsible?
  • What are you going to do about it?
  • Apparently there is a dictatorship of the people with large screens.
• RuWiki is claimed to be a closed society, not open to newcomers, outsiders, etc.
  • Who is responsible, etc.?
• There's some Swede with a bot creating all sorts of stubs.
  • How do we stop and/or encourage him to do better?
  • Who is responsible, etc.?

Overall about a 50% overlap of what you get asked on Enwiki. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. The questions quoted above would not likely come up in a press interview, but are only slightly likely to come up in the community event that is being organized. On the first question, regarding default image size, I don't know anything about it at all and it isn't the sort of thing that I get involved with at all. On the second question, regarding openness to newcomers, etc., I do have thoughts and advice which will be familiar to regular readers of this page. On the third question, I have some thoughts and advice as well, but generally it is up to each community to decide what to do about bots like that. (I have mixed feelings, and I think a pretty mainstream position within the community.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Technical issues: The default image size as 250px does favor the wide-screen laptop or notebook PCs, beyond the old 800px screen width. Because Sweden, for years, has had the highest per-capita robot-assisted society in the world, it was just a matter of time before the Swedes would loose robots onto Wikipedia and bot-generate millions of pages, and now Swedish Wikipedia has a staggering 3.5 million articles as counted by {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} there. I have been warning for years that WP must purposely fork templates so that a minor change to a template does not reformat millions of pages but instead must plan updates to all forks after a trial change to one fork. Meanwhile, the wp:developers must implement continuous reformatting of (nearly all) pages to prevent billion-page queues triggered by modified templates. Meanwhile, seems like Swedish WP will soon be the largest Wikipedia within a few years (months?). -Wikid77 (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

On the situation in the Azerbaijani part of Wikipedia

• Mr. Jimmy Wales!

You have announced that Wikipedia has 5 principles (Wikipedia:Five pillars). This principles have to be followed in each edition of Wikipedia. But when I informed Meta that in Azerbaijani edition 5 principles are not being followed, common rules are being brutally breached, administrators are involved in vandalism, meta did not take any measure and they excuse themselves by stating that Azerbaijani edition is independent?! So why then did you write that the 5 common principles are in force in all of Wikipedia’s editions? You should write instead that the 5 common principles are not in force in Azerbaijani edition, as administrators there do whatever they want!

Jimmy Wales, if you don’t consider Azerbaijani Wikipedia to be yours maybe you have sold it then? Who did you sell it to, Jimmi? It is being demanded from us to create articles about gays, otherwise they don’t let us work. We know you sold Kazakh Wikipedia to Nazarbayev. We want to know if you sold Azerbaijani Wikipedia to gays or to Azerbaijani government.

Jimmy Wales, your business abilities are not bad, you know how to make money. However if you sell Hebrew Wikipedia to Arabs, Ukrainian Wikipedia to Russians and Azerbaijani Wikipedia to Armenians (maybe you already did this), you could earn more money and give bigger salaries to your employees.

Idin Mammadof (talk), editor of DMOZ, 09:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Editors might find these links to be helpful.

• Category:Wikipedians in Azerbaijan
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Azerbaijan/Members
• Category:User az
• Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the Azerbaijani Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:Local Embassy#azərbaycanca (az)

—Wavelength (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Editors want it...

The package of proposals of the Wikimedia Foundation

• Wikimedia Foundation took this decision:

I’d like to thank you again for providing your insights on the recent situation on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia. This email is sent in BCC to all users responded to my questionnaire sent in early March.

After a thorough investigation by the support and safety team at the Wikimedia Foundation, we understand that the current major issues on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia are as follows :

User concerns of admin rights abuse by a few admins, most notably by User:Sefer_azeri.

Lack of local community policies that regulate admins’ work, or admins’ decision appeal process.

We understand the need for a harmonious, peaceful community in order to create a productive editing environment. However for both legal and ethical reasons the WMF strives to limit office actions to cases of obvious harm to an individual user's personal safety or where we're legally required to intervene.

As the above prescribed issues do not rise to the level that WMF can take office actions, we urge the Azerbaijani community to come together in order to resolve those issues internally and with the help of the global community on meta.

Meanwhile, we recommend the following prioritization as a guideline to what needs to be done as a resolution roadmap :

1.Desysop of rights-abusive admins, most notably User:Sefer_azeri if judged appropriate

If you believe that a user's rights need to be removed, this should probably happen first to allow for a clean slate. Requests to remove user’s rights can be made on meta. To request the removal of another user's permissions, you must gain consensus on the local wiki first. When there is community consensus that the user's access should be removed, a trusted user from that wiki should provide a link to the discussion on the steward's request page, a brief explanation of the reason for the request, and a summary of the results of discussion.

In order to create consensus, we recommend starting a specific topic on the local village square on Azerbaijani Wikipedia. The discussion should include links that demonstrate the admin rights abuse. The topic should be opened for discussion and vote for a few days before submitting the request to the steward page on meta.

2.Set-up policies to regulate admins’ work

3.Activate the ArbCom and/or draft and put major policies into effect

In order to simplify the process, we will be happy to provide ideas based on existing policies or the experiences of other communities on steps 2 & 3 once the community is done with dealing with step 1 or decides not to pursue that action. We believe that this is a complex issue, and looking at the resolution systematically as a step-by-step process is an essential element to make progress.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Best regards,

Haitham Shammaa

Senior Strategist

Wikimedia Foundation

• We agreed.
• But users prepared rules regarding Arbitration Committee and held a electionon about it. Approximately 20 users took part in it. When 4 days were left before the end of the elections one of the sysop but the vote on it was stopped before its time, as I understand and it didn't have any official result (neither positive, nor negative), which goes against the rules.

• Those who start discussion about administrators' actions and who express negative views about their actions are being blocked. There have been 3 blocks ([7], [8], [9],). like that.Those who organised the discussion are being blocked without time limits. In addition to that, those who participated in the discussion are being blocked without time limits as well

User:Cekli829:

"Hesab edirəm ki, müddətli bloklanan qərəzçilərin blok müddətinin müddətsiz blokla dəyişdirilməsi ilə bağlı da konkret fəaliyət ortaya qoymalıyıq."; 

User:Sortilegus:

"Bu məsələnin təşkilatçıları da təbii ki, bloklanacaqlar, çoxu onsuz da dediyim kimi blokludurlar.. 

• In the end, Haitham ran and hid. Maggie Dennis advised us to do so:

You need to demonstrate issues to the community at Meta. I am not able to assist directly.

Idin Mammadof (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Which specific content edits do you think are the locus of this dispute? EllenCT (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Almost exact same issue (admin rights abuse) is happening on Chinese Wikipedia as well, and apparently Wiki Official is not going to do something about it. Yeah, talking about the five pillars as if those are the fundamentals of wiki, yet we see no neutrality, nor do we see openness; all we see is block after block (both account and IP), which takes place whenever someone edits contents that the admins "don't want to see" for political or other bias-based reasons.

Sad to see these wikis are becoming true dictatorships minute by minute.

～～～～ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdmimBenson (talk • contribs) 18:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Long story short. In Azerbaijani Wikipedia if you openly disagree with an administrator's action, for instance if you question some other user's block, you get blocked. So, if I would write the exact same words I just wrote here in Azerbaijani Wikipedia, I would get blocked. The last time I got blocked (it was a short term block that has already ended, but I'm still angry that no other administrator dared to question it) it was basically after I criticized an administrator who then said that my words were lies and then he blocked me for "making groundless claims". Then a different user came and said that it's not ok to block a user for that. For which that same administrator responded that by continuing such a discussion "based on false claims" he have "disrupted work" in Wikipedia for which he was blocked. I want to highlight that there was no other reason provided for that user's block. So, basically there was no legitimate reason to block either of us. Non of the other administrator cares or even if they do, they know that if they do something about that there will be a scandal and AzWiki will lose some of the admins because of that (as practice shows), so they don't wanna do anything. This is just one of the many examples (If you want, I can translate the conversation for you). But the worst part of the story was not even about the AzWiki situation itself, it was about complaining to meta and Wikimedia both it. Both of them have basically said that the situation is bad and then they've sent me to each other (so, meta said that they can't do anything and sent me to Wikimedia and then Wikimedia sent me back to meta). --Мурад 97 (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I don't claim that this has anything to do with LGBT, any government or corruption. It's just that whatever it is, it should be fixed. And it can't be fixed from within, as there have been some attempts which simply didn't work. --Мурад 97 (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

PMID 26518345. Please see also New Zealand. EllenCT (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

EllenCT, how that has anything to do with what we have written? We are talking about administration blocking people for questioning their actions, like blocking other user with no legitimate reason. --Мурад 97 (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I was trying to find the locus of dispute, and came across some arguments which led me to think sources on topics which have resolved similar issues in the developed world may help. Would you say that most Azerbaijani editors agree with the statement, "Bura Azərbaycan Respublikasının qanunları ilə tənzimlənən ensiklopediya deyil"? EllenCT (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I again don't see how this has anything to do with what we are talking about, but actually many wouldn't. This phrase roughly translates as "Here is not a place regulated by the laws of the Republic of Azerbaijan [RoA]". Many people seem to be in disagreement with that. When Azerbaijani Wikipedia was divided into two (South Azerbaijani dialect got its separate edition), Azerbaijani Wikipedia should have been logically renamed into North Azerbaijani. However, most users preferred referring to the Constitution of RoA which names North Azerbaijani just "Azerbaijani" and thus kept the original name. I don't agree with such an approach, but once again, I don't understand how it has anything to do with the current discussion. --Мурад 97 (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Do the disputing factions each have their own preferred versions, like in Ukraine? EllenCT (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Ukraine? Are you trying to compare this with a military conflict? What are you even talking about? I can provide you with a translation of one of the disputes and you can see what is an existing norm in AzWiki yourself. And the thing that happened to me and the other user that was blocked is not an individual incident, it's a norm. --Мурад 97 (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd love to read a translation of an actual underlying dispute, but if you have evidence that editors are being banned with regard only to their perceived loyalties, then maybe you need [10] more than Jimbo's help. EllenCT (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

There are 5-6 of them. They are state officials. They are writing articles on order. They don’t let others work in Wikipedia. Our administrators are elected for life. There is no place to complain on administrators. They don’t let an arbitration committee to be created. Participating in a discussion, saying that an administrator broke a rule results in blocking. When I’m asking why I’ve been blocked, they don’t answer. A representative of Meta asked then about this as well, but didn’t receive an answer. When I asked Sefer azeri about his work place, his answered me that way: “I also deleted the article you have written about your father. Let it be a wedge for you (put it in your ass). You are a very ass-headed horse [Azerbaijani translated literally], so I will delete both an article about his newspaper and an article about your newspaper.” Here’s what our administrators and their morals consist of. Why don’t you do anything? Can one do such things in Wikipedia. Idin Mammadof (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Freedom of speech is a great thing and I believe in it both as a general principle and as the most workable policy. But we should remember that providing freedom of speech to editors is not actually what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is supposed to educate with a large collection of comprehensive, neutral articles by gathering together a large number of volunteers. So in order to get the WMF to take action, it is probably crucial not merely to show that administrators are arbitrary and unreasonable, but that the consequences for the encyclopedia are bad. This might include showing that particular articles are badly biased -- and I don't mean if a word like "North" is left in or out -- I mean, you have to show that facts are misrepresented or suppressed. You could compile a long list of experienced editors that administrative nonsense has driven off, and show that it is cutting down the total available labor significantly (not that this ever won the day on en.wikipedia...) You could show that false and libelous information is being put into articles about people to back some partisan agenda. And if you can, it's important to do one or more of these things, because otherwise I think you're not likely to get a lot of action, I'm afraid. I rather wish it were otherwise. Wnt (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC) (a message that "— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aydinsalis (talk • contribs) " was produced by his inadvertent deletion and prompt restoration of my text. [11] Wnt (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC))

As is well known, Azeri Wikipedia (and Kazakh Wikipedia) have not been sold to anyone. The allegation is perplexing, but I'm used to perplexing allegations. For everyone else: the Foundation has been looking into the situation in Azeri Wikipedia for some time. It's messy and complex, but allegations like "It is being demanded from us to create articles about gays, otherwise they don’t let us work" are false. Azeri culture is quite conservative with regard to issues around homosexuality, with at least some users (and perhaps some government officials) being opposed to neutral encyclopedia articles on the subject. LGBT rights in Azerbaijan provides some general background on the subject.

There are some really great Wikipedians there working hard for NPOV. As we all know, even in English where most editors would not face persecution or social ostracism for working on LGBT topics, emotions can run high and people can be quite difficult. Imagine the same thing where there is a fear of legal (or illegal) physical pressure as well.

The people doing the right thing here are among my top personal heroes.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

EllenCT, I'll provide a translation here this week. And why in the world would you give me a UN link? As a law student myself I know that it may have an authority over some stuff (even though it usually fails at it), but it certainly doesn't have an authority over Wikipedia disputes. So, is it some kind of a joke? 'Cause if it is, it's not funny.

Jimbo Wales, I have never claimed that I or anyone else in Azerbaijani (it's not Azeri, which is extinct) Wikipedia was forced to right articles about anything, including LGBT. This is where we have a disagreement with Mr. Idin. But this is true that administrators block people with no reason provided in the rules and you will see a clear example of it (which has nothing to do with LGBT or corruption) this week when I will provide a translation of what have happen with me and one more user who was defending me. --Мурад 97 (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for using the wrong term. I have heard the modern language referred to as "Azeri" by many people, and if it is incorrect I won't use the term any more. As always, I welcome NPOV summaries (rather than one-sided summaries) of events in other languages. I would try really hard to work with multiple people from both sides of the issue to present the facts in a way that everyone can agree upon... this normally means avoiding, temporarily, evaluative terms.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, I appreciate your understanding. I've managed to translate the thing faster. Please, keep in mind, that this is just one example of two users being blocked that way:

"

Hello. It would be good if you provide a basis for your claim here. I’d like to inform you that the article you are referring to there (List of unusual jobs) have been deleted by a decision of Wikicommunity during my term as an administrator. And I have done nothing to restore it. Because I think that in such cases discussions are essential. For so many years I’ve mentioned that on the talk page of that article, on the first talk that you have started and after in talks regarding other articles. I’d like to inform you that if an article is even a little bit encyclopedic, or if many have worked on it, deleting it without a discussion would be inappropriate. Even taking your long experience into account, you throwing baseless claims shows that you still lack understanding of Wikiphilosophy. And I consider your saying, “let administrator status be taken from him” to be harsh attitude, equal to insulting my personality, I count it as a big injustice towards my busy activity in Wikipedia. With a deep respect, --►Asiya səfiri Cekli 19:22, 20 mart 2016 (UTC)

In order to see that what I have written is true, it is enough to view the full version of the page you have mentioned. --Мурад 97 (müzakirə) 20:03, 20 mart 2016 (UTC)

You are doing wrong by treating standards from 5 years ago and now equally. It shows you being tendentious. In fact even you didn’t want deleting this article, you wanted to unite it with the Job article. It’s good that you didn’t become an administrator. In this case most of the articles would be deleted and rest of them would be united in a mish-mash. Articles shouldn’t be deleted, as many of them as possible should be saved. Unfortunately, you can’t base your claim. With respect, --►Asiya səfiri Cekli 11:27, 21 mart 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean “It’s good that you didn’t become an administrator”? Why would you write such a thing, if I have never tried becoming an administrator in my life? I don’t understand how did you get into discussing this. I am not obliged here by anyone to prove anything. Any person can go via that link, see the style in which you hold a discussion and make conclusions. I think, there is no need to prove anything. --Мурад 97 (müzakirə) 11:55, 21 mart 2016 (UTC)

The discussion is about you making a baseless claim. The discussion is about being tendentious. I think, 1 week long block will be enough for You to understand how wrong were you by making this claim. With respect, --►Asiya səfiri Cekli 18:41, 21 mart 2016 (UTC)

Asiya səfiri Cekli, I think that based on this discussion, blocking an editor in such a manner is not right. --samral müzakirə 00:02, 25 mart 2016 (UTC)

When claim is baseless, there is a base for a block. That’s why there is a baseless claim by an instigator. --►Asiya səfiri Cekli 10:51, 25 mart 2016 (UTC)

Asiya səfiri Cekli, but he did provide a base. What do you mean, he didn’t? --samral müzakirə 15:40, 25 mart 2016 (UTC)

Samral, the thing that he is claiming is only about a discussion from 2011. Back then he didn’t even provide evidence that the article he wanted to mix with another one was un-encyclopedic… You need to provide evidence to unite or delete an existing article. Acategory who have created the article provided an even more solid thought that my acceptance of it according to Wikistandards of that time was expedient. As a result of it, 5 years ago Murad was unable to base his thoughts. But regardless of that, 5 years later him purposefully bringing this up shows how tendentious and malicious his position is. With respect, --►Asiya səfiri Cekli 19:18, 25 mart 2016 (UTC)

Asiya səfiri Cekli, where is it written that you can’t bring up a 5 years old discussion? He brought it up now, right? This doesn’t mean you should block him. This is abusing your administrator’s position. --samral müzakirə 21:37, 25 mart 2016 (UTC)

Dear Samral, it seems you can’t distinguish between rightful and non-rightful charges/claims. By continuing such discussions you disrupt normal work in Wikipedia. Because of that, based on the 7th article of the Blocking rules, I block you. With respect, --►Asiya səfiri Cekli 12:32, 26 mart 2016 (UTC)

"

You can ask about accuracy of this translation from anyone in AzWiki. I was a bit too fast in translating it, as I was doing this for you. I am opened to criticism. Now, do you think blocking the two of us is reflecting Wikipedia principles? --Мурад 97 (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, allegations like "It is being demanded from us to create articles about gays, otherwise they don’t let us work", no are false. Indeed, using another username, Sefer Azeri suggested me to help with LGBT themed articles. Then he said, he got administrator status from 3 administrators who were against the LGBT theme. I can show you a picture of this no are false the discussion chat, this is not a lie.

I can show 1 or 2 links to the articles that were related to me and were deleted in a vandal way. Repeatedly deleted encyclopedic articles ([12], [13], [14], Why? This article contains information about my father and so on. Why do you defend this administrator?

Look at them: [15], [16]...

We gave you information that they have stopped the Arbitration commission voting 4 days before it ended. Why don’t you restore it?

Jimbo Wales, I thank you for personally participating in the discussion. We are pleased by that, but your decision that would lead to resolving the problem would please us even more. And we wait very much for your decision. Idin Mammadof (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Was there any reason given that formation of elected Arbitrators was halted by administrators? EllenCT (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not the choice of arbitrators. It was a vote on the "Project Arbitration Court". We have given the above information, "But users prepared rules regarding Arbitration Committee and held a electionon about it. Approximately 20 users took part in it. When 4 days were left before the end of the elections one of the sysop but the vote on it was stopped before its time, as I understand and it didn't have any official result (neither positive, nor negative), which goes against the rules".Idin Mammadof (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Did az:İstifadəçi:Sortilegus say why they halted the proposal? Are they involved with blocking based on perceived political loyalties? Has anyone taken Shammaa's advice and made the request to stewards on meta? (Where is the steward page on meta?) EllenCT (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Sortilegus took part in the discussion of the project, and was satisfied. He was given a detailed explanation. I made the request to stewards on meta (the steward page on meta). Look also at this. Idin Mammadof (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the stewards should be asked to unblock the arbitrarily blocked editors who were trying to form an arbitration committee, or de-admin the administrators who were blocking proponents of an arbitration committee, or both, instead? Have you tried two competing arbcom proposals with, for example, different levels of article editing experience to qualify? EllenCT (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Stewart wrote, "Stewards also have no role in voting and elections of an arbitration committee".

The project was developed in 2011, by the administrator.

The user who started the voting, it is not on the block. (The package of proposals of the Wikimedia Foundation, a suitable 3-th place.) I think, there are no people who want to become an administrator among us. Nether I, nor Murad or Samral or others never wanted to become administrators. This is made up by the administrators. If a user ia a bit active, it seems to them that this user wants to become an administrator, so they start disrupt the activities of such users. Idin Mammadof (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Jimbo Wales, we can normally be active in other language editions of Wikipedia despite that we don’t know other languages well. It’s not possible to do in our own language. You already know that in the Azerbaijani edition an administrator can undertake massive vandalism whenever they want and they openly say that. Even though terminating his administrator status was discussed a number of times, he is still an administrator. Neither meta nor stewards thought of stopping his activity yet. A package of 3 proposals was brought upon you by the Wikimedia Foundation, as I know it wasn’t allowed for it to pass. Now, the word is yours, please. İdin Mammadof (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I am studying all of this, seeking to understand how I might be most helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I recommend asking the stewards to proactively support the formation of a regularly elected Arbitration committee comprised of long term editors elected by their peers without regard to standing. EllenCT (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Upon further study, I recommend directing the stewards to unblock any editor blocked for even the appearance of complaining about administrator abuses. EllenCT (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, stewards do not know the Azerbaijani language. İdin Mammadof (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Jimbo Wales, we wait very much, problem solving and decision making on the Azerbaijani part of Wikipedia. But how long should we wait? Personally, I'm waiting for 4 years. When I’m asking why I’ve been blocked, they don’t answer. A representative of Meta asked then about this as well, but didn’t receive an answer. You can write to the fact that "the 5 common principles are not in force in Azerbaijani edition, as administrators there do whatever they want!". Idin Mammadof (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you make a list of all the editors who have been blocked for complaining about admin abuses or advocating the formation of an arbitration committee, with a link to the reasons given and a translation for the stewards, and then poll the stewards' opinions individually on their meta user talk pages? That should help whether Jimbo decides to help or not. EllenCT (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

List of all the editors who have been blocked for complaining about admin abuses or advocating the formation of an arbitration committee, with a link to the reasons given.

Voting (Arbitration Committee)

 Yes

1. samral ^müzakirə 20:24, 20 mart 2016 (UTC)
2. Samir Rutulec (müzakirə) 10:10, 21 mart 2016 (UTC)
3. Shahrux (müzakirə) 10:50, 21 mart 2016 (UTC)
4. Yusif Sərrac (müzakirə) 22:04, 21 mart 2016 (UTC)
5. Namikilisu 19:12, 23 mart 2016 (UTC)
6. Qolçomaq (müzakirə) 19:33, 23 mart 2016 (UTC)
7. Araz Yaquboglu (müzakirə) 05:27, 24 mart 2016 (UTC)
8. Calal99 (müzakirə) 11:10, 24 mart 2016
9. Nəsibli Təhmasib (müzakirə) 14:17, 24 mart 2016 (UTC)
10. Aabdullayev851 (müzakirə) 07:40, 30 mart 2016 (UTC)

 No

1. --►Asiya səfiri Cekli 10:29, 21 mart 2016 (UTC)
2. Sortilegus (müzakirə) 08:21, 22 mart 2016 (UTC)
3. hinkel777 (müzakirə) 08:58, 25 mart 2016 (UTC)
4. Keete 37 (Farid Aliev) (müzakirə) 19:48, 25 mart 2016 (UTC)
5. sefer azeri 05:54, 30 mart 2016 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Ağ iβlis (müzakirə) 13:40, 21 mart 2016 (UTC)
2. Azerifactory (müzakirə) 02:39, 24 mart 2016 (UTC)

İdin Mammadof (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

* Jimbo Wales, we wait very much, problem solving and decision making on the Azerbaijani part of Wikipedia. Idin Mammadof (talk) 05:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Flag of NATO

Hi guys,

I tried to update the file Flag of NATO 1.svg because the color has already been corrected at Flag of NATO.svg, so I tried to update the former file with the color corrected flag, because the flag with the wrong color still has a sizable number of uses. But for some reason, the color of the updated file turns out to be the same wrong color. Will you guys take a look? It seems to be a problem with preview only. In my web browser, the file turns out to be the correct color. Thanks so much.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_NATO_1.svg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_NATO.svg 475847394d347339 (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Got it! Problem fixed. It took a few minutes though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 475847394d347339 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Retiring

I gave Wikipedia a chance for 9 years. Jimmy Wales had a great idea, and 2008-2010 seemed to be the zenith for the project, it had overcome its growing pains, and Civility was scrupulously enforced, but it has been on a steady decline from there. More and more incivility has been ignored, and even instigated by admins, who seem to pepper their edit summaries, closing summaries, and talk page comments with snark that escalates rather than resolves conflict. When I went to ANI to report someone for accusing me of "fraud" and was immediately hectored by uninvolved non-administrators merely for filing an ANI, and an admin's response is "X makes those kinds of comments at ANI. Everybody knows it, and now you do too. He's being snarky, not uncivil. Stop paying attention and it won't bother you," that's when I finally acknowledged how dysfunctional the Wikipedia culture had become. It's no wonder Wikipedia is losing editors Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go. I agree the snarky edit summaries and talk page comments are out of hand. Sole Flounder (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whether it will help, but that accusation of "fraud" was not appropriate. I'm sorry that point got lost in the discussion. The editor who used that term did have a good point, but that wasn't the way to make the point. I also think the counter-argument that the term was applied to an edit, rather than an editor so technically was not a personal attack is a bit too wikilawyerish for my taste. That said, it is disappointing that you responded by getting into the mud. That's hardly the way to encourage civility.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

(mmyers1976 responding without logging in because i have no intention of logging in any more). II came here one last time to see if anyone actually gave a damn. Flounder and SPhilbrick, I appreciate the words, they helped soften the exit. SPhilbrick, you are right, wasn't my finest hour. I always held myself to maintaining scrupulous civility and decorum, never been blocked or even warned by an admin, but the last 5 years I've seen more and more people, including admins, getting away with more and more rudeness, it got harder and harder to see the point in staying so polite myself, and then the way ANI has apparently become an anarchy, I tried to post a civil report and got heckled for it by people who seem to hang out there for that purpose, and I snapped and responded in kind, I no longer want to be a part of a culture so dysfunctional it's bringing out the worst in me. 2602:304:CE79:4500:A850:B1D1:7B24:DF4E (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

You know when you WP:FLOUNCE, its considered bad form to come back within 24 hours. You need to leave it at least a week to gather the suitable talk-page 'Dont go!' messages. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Only, that was just the kind of comment I needed to remind me of why I'm leaving this place. Don't worry, this will be my last message on Wikipedia, period. 198.0.82.2 (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: Looks like quite a lot of logged out editing previously, though. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Glad I could be of help. Ta-ra! Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I hear your words loud and clear, and they resonate with my observations fully, as you can tell from the section i started above ("Wikipedia, we still have a problem"). Civility seems to be hardly extant here. Without enforcement of basic civility, let alone integrity of dialog, the environment here is toxic to many well-intentioned and talented editors. Your retirement speaks exactly to points i made above. The content suffers greatly from this dysfunction of culture among editors. It's inevitable. If we cannot hold civil discussions among various points of view, then Wikipedia is lost. SageRad (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

(Reading the dialog above, in response to your parting message, i am simply astounded at the level of rudeness tolerated here with no repercussions. It feels like a Kindergarten class with no teacher present.) SageRad (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Same here... Really astonishing. It's bad that people no longer want to identify with our community, mostly because of how we interact with each other. We have a serious bullying and civility problem (and I think part of this is actually a side effect of how people interact with each other in youtube comments, twitter, politics, etc, it's a larger societal problem). But a problem none the less and if it were up to me, we would start a strong punitive blocking policy. No vengeance, but also no get out of jail free cards. And i'd have no problem with giving people/avatar/onlinepersona publicly displayed scores on an 'asshole level'-scale. And requiring an emailaddress for your account, and so much more... Oh and Mmyers1976, please find something that you enjoy doing, that enriches your life and makes the world a better place. Good luck. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I remember editing in the late 2000's and it was fun, mostly collaborative and dealing with disputes wasn't that terrible. Now, I'm scared to post or comment in certain areas because I know that others will pounce. I also know that admins do get away with things a mere mortal would not get away with, and worse, if you complain, then you get blocked. The whole Wiki is pretty toxic and Jimmy needs to start doing something about from the top down. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The fatal flaw in "preventative not punitive" is that it quite clearly grants license to do whatever you want, provided you stop doing it before a sanction is applied. People are more than smart enough to see that, and many of them are unethical enough to exploit it, and do so regularly. It is a noble experiment in human nature that has, regrettably, failed. No viable society in history has said that you won't be punished for wrongdoing provided you can convince us that you won't do it again, even though this is the fifth time you have convinced us of that. It's time we abandoned the experiment and recognized that, by their deterrent value, punitive sanctions are preventative. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

"All in all it's been a good day."[17] And we can leave any time we want......and come back. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• It's easy to get wrapped up in drama and frustrated and mad when things don't go one's way. Complaints about "lack of civility" almost inevitably follow, because that is a more or less meaningless flag that everyone can get behind and it is easy to garner sympathy in such a way. The fact is, an experienced editor such as Mmyers1976 should have somewhere between no and low expectations of ANI solving any interaction complaint, such experienced editors should not become upset when ANI underperforms even these low expectations, and such experienced editors, instead of running off, need to ask themselves why they ever went dashing off to ANI in the first place. A newcomer might be surprised and shocked and repelled from the project by what they learn — an experienced editor should know this in the first place. If a jerk is dominating one article, move along and write about something else. There are 5.25 million pieces to work on and at least three times that many more that remain to be written. Just get busy and write, goddammit. Then again, we all have our cracking points with stress and we all need to get away from time to time. So, take some time, M. Myers, rest and recharge and remember what it is about WP that makes putting up with the steady stream of low level background bullshit worthwhile. And we look forward to seeing you back when the time feels right again. best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with you to an extent, I took a whole bunch of pages off my watchlist for that reason. But the fact remains that there is a civility problem. It really does depend on who the perpetrators are in order to determine response. Admins do have a problem with crossing the snark-incivil line. I do understand that they have to deal with trolls and real bad guys out on the net, but the answer to a civility query should not be "That's the way he is, get used to it." Civility needs to be stressed and it needs to be enforced. With that, there can be greater collaboration, greater camaraderie, etc. I don't need to edit an article to fix a mistake if I'm just going to be hit with crap. We need to let the editors know that we do take civility seriously and we need to change our attitude about it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I've seen what SageRad is saying. People do come with better science and they are banned because they are new users focusing on their area of interest so they must be SPAs or part of a scam of some sort, or some other excuse. There is an Official Science/Skepticism Movement™ associated with Rational Wiki and Atheism+ that has abandoned science and skepticism and become a mirror image of fundamentalism. If these people were around 50 years ago they would have laughed off tectonic plate theory and the idea of warm-blooded birdlike dinosaurs and they would have done everything in their power to ruin the careers of the actual scientists driving science forward. This is one of several agenda-based groups in the admin corps that routinely ignore NPOV and harshly punish anyone who stands in the way of rewriting the Wiki to support their agenda, actual science and sources be damned.

And all over American Politics and the Arab-Israeli conflict the admins have declared sources known to accept native advertising and print hoaxes without correction as "reliable" while sources that don't have as bad a reputation are not allowed because they make less money, don't have as wide a marketing reach, and most importantly, the information they print is in disagreement with what the admins would rather have the page say. Hoaxing is allowed if done by the right people or to the right people such as Gamergate, White Genocide, the Men's Rights Movement, or Frank Gaffney. Meanwhile the actual experts tend to be bullheaded and certain of themselves and they have little tolerance for all of these rules and regulations so they challenge the house POV as aggressively as the admins challenge them and they get the boot very quickly.

Here is one small example of the problem in US Politics. An experienced editor can get away with calling another editor a "racist conspiracy theorist" because the junior editor is better informed of the subject matter: the subject's legal documents were published, they say that the subject is white, and it would take a DNA test to prove them wrong. The experienced editor, a former admin who is buddies with all of the other admins, still insists that the subject is black and had the junior editor blocked for saying that Wikipedia should take no position on the controversy. Nobody sanctioned the senior editor or even warned them for the gross and unwarranted personal attack.

You know that a big part of the problem is Gardner's people and the gendergappers and the jackasses who hang out on IRC and canvass each other all the time. You must have heard about the harassment of David Auerbach by the same arbitrators who pretend that they need more power and more WMF money to stop harassment on Wikipedia. Do something about it. 50.196.177.155 (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jzg: If you had a substantive reason for deleting the post, you should have left that in the edit summary. Simply stating "rant" is not sufficient. It would be informative for you to share with us your evidence this was "trolling" (your word, not mine). DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO, I also reverted Jzg's deletion of another editor's post (50.196.177.155). --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@50.196.177.155: The post you cite is an interesting example. On one hand, I see the rationale of the admins that someone is pushing at BLP a bit with a mostly political purpose, but on the other, yes, this is the sort of thing that needs to be discussed. I do not claim any great talent at it, but I think the absolute key to any "Jedi for judgment" scenario [sorry, this is an impossibly obscure reference, can't find it myself...] is that you need to think deeply about the problem and get at the unspoken detail that has everyone confused. In the case of Shaun King, this key detail is explained here -- other than by court action, the husband of a mother will be entered as the father on the birth certificate unless he voluntarily disclaims paternity and the biological father voluntarily assumes it in a three-way process. Legal paternity on a birth certificate simply is not intended to be a racial pedigree. The biggest practical problem that comes up then is how do you get past 'original synthesis' rules to share your enlightenment? Hmmm, I dunno, but whatever way you choose has to be more useful than arguing at ArbCom. Wnt (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Well, the obvious problem is that the comment was left by someone who is self-evidently evading eithe ra block or scrutiny, because it is utterly implausible that this comment was left by a genuinely new user. But whatever. This is Jimbotalk, trolls get to evade blocks here pretty often, and I don't care that much. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

There's something to part of your message, but in any case deletion didn't seem to be supported by policy and another editor thought the ideas in the message were worth having a discussion about and correspondingly responded to the message. Out of curiosity, would you have deleted the message if it was posted by a registered account? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I, for one, am thankful that the comment was restored twice by two different editors, and troubled that it was deleted twice by JzG/Guy. This is more distortion of dialog. I don't see what would make it "trolling". Sure, it could conceivably be someone who is blocked, but it could also be someone who is just an IP user or who is not comfortable using their username here for whatever reason (possibly because of the hostile culture that is the very topic we're discussing, in which people are often "marked (wo)men" and attacked whenever their username pops up. Anyway, i am very thankful that i was able to read this comment, and i find it useful. I am troubled it was deleted twice, making me wonder what else i've missed because of such deletions. (One of my comments was heavily cut yesterday by Jytdog on another page, for instance. I happened to notice it and restore the sense of what i'd wanted to express.) How is deleting or cutting other people's comments on such flimsy justification allowed nowadays? If i think someone's comment is "just crap" as in the edit summary of that last link, then can i simply delete it willy-nilly? Some people think they can. It's one more element of the toxic nature and lack of integrity in the dialogs here, which must be solved before the content can improve with integrity. SageRad (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I am sure you are glad, since it flatters your belief in an Evil cabal™. Do you want full details of my affiliation with RationalWiki and Athiesm Plus? I have none. I don't edit RW and I am not even an atheist. And that is precisely the problem with that kind of comment: it paints the world as black and white, with everybody either on the side of the angels or part of the evil militant atheist skeptic cabal. Not only is it not true, but even if it was true, it would not be a problem, because Wikipedia policies are unambiguously rationalist. Guy (Help!) 16:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Listen to how you talk, just listen to yourself, will you? SageRad (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

From the above message of 50.196.177.155, "An experienced editor can get away with calling another editor a "racist conspiracy theorist"..." If one follows the link, the phrase is in the section 75.140.253.89 (click "show" to expand) and is under the part Additional comments by editor filing complaint. Here's the whole sentence. "This editor is, quite simply, a racist conspiracy theorist, and should not be permitted to edit this person's biography." Looks to me like a personal attack in violation of the policy WP:NPA. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I guess so, though no one actually made an AE request on that editor for the violation of NPA...either that demonstrates a lack of anyone caring, or a fear of the higher-statured editors in some way. As for myself, I didn't file it because I was under the assumption that AE requests require the subject to have been explicitly warned and shown to have continued in defiance of the warning...so I left myself a reminder to be on the lookout. This was met with an "of course you are racist, and how dare you try to disagree with us!" by what I presume to be a friend [18]. This kind of battleground mentality is exactly the kind of thing that is adopted by the very same people who lament in their userspaces that Wikipedia just doesn't retain enough editors, and golly gee no one knows why! It certainly would have driven me off as well if it didn't stimulate my annoyance in just the right way. Anyway, lest I digress too much, I suppose you're free to open up that request for enforcement regarding that NPA violation. You being an uninvolved editor I'd think it'd be more well-received. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Although I think it's a violation of WP:NPA, I don't think that it would be appropriate to bring it to AE. I would have expected that an editor or administrator watching that AE discussion would have deleted the personal attack. It's also interesting that a person was called a racist, not for attacking someone for being an African-American, but for saying that there was a question about whether a person was an African-American and that the person may be caucasian. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

To be fair to JzG/Guy's point above, i agree that it's not a purely "black and white" thing. There are shades of gray. That's what i would consider either a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of what i am saying. But there do seem to be "sides" and battle lines drawn. Observation from a bird's-eye-view after some time does show clear patterns of the same group of people doing the same sorts of things in the same direction. To an extent, that's ok and to be expected, as people are consistent through time, but when it becomes dominant of the project and hostile to others, then it's clearly not ok anymore. For JzG/Guy to say "it flatters your belief in an Evil cabal™" is painting me as having a comic-book-style model of what's happening, which i do not. On the other hand, there are obvious patterns here. There are shades and nuances to this issue. There are people who want to push silly pseudoscience into Wikipedia, and it is good that others will oppose that. On the other hand, if the "immune system" goes overboard then you get an auto-immune disorder, which is where i think Wikipedia's at. The "Skeptic" movement fancies itself an immune system against quackery and such, and to an extent, it is -- and for this i am thankful. But when it goes overboard, takes over the project, and exercises a monopoly on declaring entire realms to be "fringe" whereas that may be partially correct but also partially over-reach, that's where it goes bad. And the general tone that seems to come from the attitude seems to be scornful and mean, and even proud of being so mean, or at least self-excusing of being mean ("Well, you get tired of fighting quackery day after day...") but just like it is not excuse for police to be dehumanizing and prejudiced against civilians because they do confront bad people, it's no excuse for self-appointed defenders of one version of rationality to become mean and punitive to editors as a default, and to continue to try to mark and paint certain editors over and over and over again to the point where they leave the project with their hands in the air. SageRad (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

There are "sides", yes. One side is long-time Wikipedians defending, to the best of their ability, the foundational policy of WP:NPOV, the other side is people who come here to "correct" our "bias" on topics such as homeopathy, vaccines, evolution, climate change and so on. It has always been like that. The only thing that's really changed is that it is now dramatically more important to cranks to get their views reflected as fact on Wikipedia. Well, that and the fact that we now appear to live in a post-factual society where a subset of people genuinely believe that there are "different ways of knowing" things that are open to objective testing, and that their belief is every bit as valid as science's fact. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You still seem to be seeing it in a completely polarized way, judging from the comment above. You seem to be the one who is more guilty of "black and white" thinking moreso than i, the one who you claim to be guilty of it. I see and describe nuance in the situation, and that there is much good that comes from watching out for NPOV and RS ... but then the question becomes "who is watching the watchers, and what prevents them from going overboard and becoming harmful in that way?" and at this point i see that having come to fruition, like, as i said above, an overenthusiastic immune system which leads to auto-immune disorders. The immune system becomes harmful when it goes overboard and destroys good things. SageRad (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Just a general question for the two of you. If there was strict adherence to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, do you think that the two of you would be having this discussion? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

A wonderful question, Bob K31416, and my answer is a resounding "No, we'd be alright then!" which would be wonderful! That's pretty much all i'm advocating for -- the strict and sensible application of the policies of Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we absolutely would. SageRad was topic-banned from his main area of interest by ArbCom, and that is the meat of his complaint. He considers this ban to be illegitimate, which is why he says the conversation would not be happening if PAG were adhered to: in his world, adherence to policy means he gets his way. A lot of people have pointed out he's wrong. He doesn't believe it. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

A followup question for both of you. If Wikimedia Foundation provided a professional expert on Wikipedia policies and guidelines who ruled against you, would you accept that ruling? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom already ruled against SageRad on the substantive issues of policy, and appeals here have failed to get Jimbo to intervene. That's how Wikipedia works. I'm content to defer to the community if anything changes, and to science of that changes, but we don't do professional experts. Guy (Help!) 00:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the good questions, Bob K31416. If there is anyone who shows integrity in application of policies through time, and thereby establishes a record of good judgment, and who then looks deeply into an incident or interaction, then i would most definitely defer to their judgment. You see, establishing a record of good judgment takes showing good judgment through time and this is not what i've seen on ANI or ArbCom when reviewing other cases. Sometimes there's a judgment that seems to be solid, but not typically. Then when i was one of a dozen subjects of a big ArbCom case last Autumn, i saw over and over and over again how there was a deep bias plus a "deep shallowness" (oxymoron meant for emphasis) to the judging process. There was serious failure to account for many things, or even to answer basic questions even when i posted them in my section in ALL CAPS BOLD .... there was serious lack of integrity and i make no bones about saying that. Many others made the same observations and i'm not alone in saying this. It's not "sour grapes" -- it's a real thing. I see it nowadays all the time if i glance at any forum where judging of other editors goes on. The U.S. justice system also shows a pattern of injustice in a majority of criminal cases, and i've seen that too and spoken to it. It's no secret. It's a question of worldview, whether you see it or admit to seeing it. So i reject the insinuations of selfishness or otherwise coloring this dialog by JzG/Guy above. He does not speak for "the community" but rather more for a subset of the community which i am holding creates a problem of injustice here. Anyway, i speak for myself and i reject all the accusations of what JzG/Guy ascribes to me when he uses a phrase like "in his world" .... please speak for yourself so that i may simply speak for myself as well, JzG/Guy. And i say "Yes, if there is any entity who shows integrity through time and has a good record of judgment then i would submit to their judgment." SageRad (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That word integrity. You keep using it but I don't think it means what you think it means. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I reviewed the locus of the "racist conspiracy theorist" comment. It is amply justified in context. The IP in question was pushing racist conspiracist bullshit at a WP:BLP. Frankly, I'd be surprised if this was not an editor who has logged out to avoid scrutiny, but either way it's a case of WP:SPADE. Demanding a genealogical test because someone doesn't look black enough to conform to your stereotype will never be appropriate on Wikipedia. The correct response to that kind of editor is: go away, and don't come back. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It all depends on whether you parse the phrase as (racist conspiracy) theorist or as racist (conspiracy theorist). The former is merely descriptive of the editor's posts as theorizing that a conspiracy exists that is racist in nature.--Noren (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair point, but still a remarkably stupid choice of "abuse" to highlight, since the edits in question were sekf-evidently highly inappropriate. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Guy, SageRad, Would it be useful if Wikimedia Foundation provided a professional expert on Wikipedia policies and guidelines to offer a non-binding opinion? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not work that way. The issue here is that one person refuses to accept dissenting views, and rejects as illegitimate (explicitly so) any process that does not result in his being allowed to promote his views. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

There is way more scrutiny here concerning civility than there was in the past. To say it's actually worse than ever is not only untrue, and sour grapes; it's downright insulting to those who work to improve civility issues around here. If I had a dime for every editor that retired in a huff saying, "This place just isn't like it used to be!"... I'd have a ton of freaking dimes! Doc talk 08:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Thought I might add my experience as a mature aged female editor. Recently I asked admins at ANI to take action on this foul mouthed comment waste of fucking time. this URL is already used as a named ref. sloppy time-wasting garbage Mr Wales, do children and adults reading such comments on the article and talk pages really need to be exposed to such filth. And nothing, I repeat nothing was done. So as for civility improving here and admins taking action on such incidents, well....?Charlotte135 (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The case commences, Charlotte135. _Muffled ^Pocketed 07:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

For the usual fee / plus expenses Guy (Help!) 22:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Link, please? Guy (Help!) 07:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I was looking for this same thing, but then came across some totally unambiguous copyright infringement that led to a topic ban. This edit[19] is a blatant copypaste from the very source they listed as a reference. The phrase "around 30% of global suicides are due to pesticide self-poisoning, most of which occur in rural agricultural areas in low- and middle-income countries" is directly lifted from the source material. Charlotte135 denied doing it.[20] A very sordid business... Doc talk 07:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Not sordid at all. i was going to use quotations for that section. But just another example of taking the focus off such uncivil and uncouth foul language used by a supposed experienced editor toward a relatively new female editor, and then other editors and Admins covering it up, and downplaying it. Jytdog did not say waste of fucking time. this URL is already used as a named ref. sloppy time-wasting garbage for that either. It was because I used a bare URL in my reference. A lesson now learnt and I have not done again. Jytdog could have left a civil comment as to the use of bare URLs instead of filthy abuse! Was using the words waste of fucking time really necessary? It is intimidating. It is bullying. It is threatening language. Especially to some moral readers and children. If noone can see my point here, there really is something terribly wrong at WP. Children read WP public forums. This is the problem spoke of above. Perhaps this policy could have applied Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. However I'm sure other editors will now continue to take the focus away from the point I'm making and Jytdog's foul language on a public forum, and towards a relatively new female editor. No wonder WP loses so many females here!! And Admins at ANI did absolutely nothing. Sorry, I disagree, WP civility is going downhill fast and IMO Mr Wales, someone needs to change this before it is too late!Charlotte135 (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Charlotte135, suggest that since your topic ban stops you 'making sex/gender-related edits on topics not mainly about sex/gender', it might be worth avoiding discussing why WP 'loses so many females' here. FYI. _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The editor in question apologized and at least one other female editor (an admin) indicated that your overreaching was somewhat offensive to her. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

No, they objected to me calling it "verbal abuse". I think it was verbal abuse. Sorry. And that backs up my point again on declining civility and Admins doing nothing about it. And NeilN, my whole point here is that civility is not being addressed, by Admins. You did nothing about Jytdog saying waste of fucking time. this URL is already used as a named ref. sloppy time-wasting garbage for using a bare URL, and as a relatively new editor. As I said, I knew the focus would be taken away from that point, but it's true. It needs to be addressed at Wikipedia, as new editors are being chased away by WP interrelated gangs, that bully, instead of encourage newbies that may disagree with them, and their ideology driven agendas. Why don't you focus on the foul mouthed abuse by Jytdog? You did nothing. No new editor needs to be told waste of fucking time. this URL is already used as a named ref. sloppy time-wasting garbage Why can't you see that NeilN?Charlotte135 (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You're ignoring the fact that editors agreed the language was uncalled for and that Jytdog apologized. And you, having earned your second topic ban, are not a new editor. That doesn't excuse the language but stop trying to make it a factor here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It is a factor here. It was Admin's attitude toward this language, that I'm talking about. It was quickly dismissed, and you know it NeilN. I am sure I will now be swiftly blocked (gagged) by angry Admins, for having the courage for speaking out here. But Mr Wales, I really, really think you need to do something about this issue of declining civility and bullying of new editors, by established gangs (cabals), before it's too late!Charlotte135 (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Charlotte135: There's a theoretical problem with the "bad language" argument you're using here. If such bad language is intrinsically unjustifiable, then why are you posting it here in bold? And if it can be justifiable, then why would you want a rule against it? You should be looking for a rule against something else, whatever makes it unjustifiable sometimes.

Oh, I know that incivility is a problem. I am not however convinced that administrative procedures are a solution. Putting editors through some kind of mock trial over that kind of comment cannot be justified if it doesn't actually make Wikipedia a more productive environment. We're not here to teach life lessons, we're not here to "send a message" or show what we think is wrong, we're here to get the information compiled and available to the world. What are the costs here? What (if anything) is the reward?

Of course, excessive enforcement isn't limited to civility. It's good to point out when an editor fails to quote a quote, yes. But without showing some deliberate pattern of abuse, it's not reasonable to start talking about plagiarism as an issue, and it is never reasonable to talk (as many do) about "copyright violation" where short pieces of text are concerned. The copyright laws are bad, but not that bad.

What these issues have in common is a Twitterization phenomenon. It seems to me like Twitter is the most prosecutable/fireable/persecutable/bullyable medium I've ever heard of, because some people don't grok the concept of cherry-picking. You split what a person says into enough small snippets, and eventually you can find one snippet that is somewhat objectionable. Then you say "well this is what they're like" and call for a general war. But it's always been stupid and always will be stupid. If a student handed in a 10-page paper and it contained one or two quotes with the quotation marks missing, properly cited, would the professor call him out as a plagiarist? I think not -- at least I hope not, because the point of education is supposed to be to spot mistakes and help the student gradually to reduce their frequency and gain confidence, not to look for a gotcha and destroy his hopes. Wikipedia should work no differently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wnt (talk • contribs)

Whole Internet has trolls and many users make clean start

The recent news about the Facebook and Twitter onslaught of cyberbullies helps to confirm the whole Internet is overrun with get-a-life tyrants who enjoy torturing users (or pet animals?), and eventually WP will accompany other websites in blocking the rude bullies. Now, after fixing thousands of pages for typos, I have noticed hundreds of experienced editors with "new" usernames, as if once wp:Wikihounded by too many trolls, those people merely create a new username for the next year's edits (or perhaps they forgot their old password and cannot take time to decode for old username). Meanwhile, there are just so many thousands of interesting topics to expand, and we cannot stop to babysit bullies when so much else needs to be done to expand Wikipedia's coverage of topics. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You will, of course, now clarify that you absolutely do not intend to imply that anybody with whom you are in dispute on Wikipedia tortures animals. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've never tortured animals (and consider people who do to be despicable pieces of shit), and I've had this username since 2005. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

^so these 2 admins decided to take the 'least' important part of Wikid77's statement and talk about that instead...lol..and we wonder what is wrong with this site...nonsense aside, I also think we should focus less on cyber bullying and more on building the site. It seems like when you tell a troll to stop doing something, you are either tagged as a cyber bully or someone who is 'Hounding' that person so they basically become the victim of their own tyranny, I personally believe that people who get 'easily offended' should not really be on social media or wikipedia, the internet was not meant for everyone and i'm very much against clean starts, its just an excuse for 'bad people' to make a new start to get what they want......--Stemoc 23:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

There was nothing there worth addressing. In my experience most of the "brand new users" Wikid77 discusses are returning sockpuppets of rebuffed POV-pushers. You could get rid of everybody who defends Wikipedia agianst abuse, I guess, on the grounds that most of us are burned out, but the result would not be pretty, albeit that the lunatic charlatans would be very happy. Guy (Help!) 07:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• "overrun with get-a-life tyrants who enjoy torturing users" - sounds very familiar!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: I know nothing about this, but comments have been posted and deleted again here. Just for the record, in case it's meaningful for someone, as the other day a comment above was deleted by JzG/Guy that was actually relevant to the discussion in my view. I don't see why comments get deleted so very often. What's to hide? SageRad (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

In that particular case, the user has been community banned for the last five years. This is easily visible from their contributions. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

And, to put it bluntly, the banned user frequently flat out lies in their posts and pretends posts by them were made by other people. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

URGENT: Needs Attention

I just heard that the government of the state of California is planning to prohibit screenings, viewings, and even discussions about the movie Vaxxed. This is a blatant attack on our 1st Amendment rights, and I'm worried this could turn into another SOPA and PIPA. I know vaccines are a controversial topic, but this effort is ridiculous. Please notify the Foundation staff at the next meeting before it's too late.--Paint Roller (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The "sources" I find for that are a few random blogs, and Infowars. So I think it's probably a bit early to be shouting at the Foundation about it. If California actually does start outlawing movies, I think these guys are actually the nonprofit you'd want to have a word with, anyway. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anything here that needs attention, so here's a dog. This dog needs attention. Rhoark (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not going to happen, much as it would improve public health. The crockumentary is here to stay, and a few more people will no doubt suffer serious harm and death as the fraudulent Wakefield empire enriches itself a little bit more. Now explain why a brand new user's first edit was adding {{sock}} to someone's userpage, and how they managed to find WP:UAA and make a well-formed (if frivolous) report after fewer than 20 edits. And then come along here to promote an anti-vax trope? Guy (Help!) 22:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

And (improperly) give vandal warnings, too, given that these edits are not vandalism: [21], [22]. I rather get the idea that someone is not here to contribute. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Help is on the way. Count Iblis (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of such help, the hero of the video linked to by the Count was referred to as a "national disgrace" in a *hacked e-mail* by Colin Powell. CP said that he wouldn't comment, but would not deny it. The incident has had considerable coverage. Can we use "national disgrace" in articles about the "video hero"? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be a legitimate concern, though I would hope that the courts might put a quick end to the expansive aspirations of the bill AB-1671. Here is the text: [23]

• They start with a state law that it is illegal to record a conversation with a health care provider unless all parties consent (this already is a matter of state-by-state variation; there are one-party states and two-party states where recording private conversations are concerned.

• Now they say it is a crime to publish anything learned this way: "(1) A person who violates subdivision (a) of Section 632 shall be punished pursuant to subdivision (b) if the person intentionally discloses or distributes, in any manner, in any forum, including, but not limited to, Internet Web sites and social media, or for any purpose, the contents of a confidential communication with a health care provider that is obtained by that person in violation of subdivision (a)..."

• Then they try a sort of hail mary with some kind of notion of "aiding and abetting". The bill text doesn't really seem to advance it - they must already have come up with some kind of trick along this line, maybe some lawyer can explain it. All I see is the seemingly restrictive text that "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, to aid and abet a violation of paragraph (1), for the purposes of Section 31, the person shall either violate, or aid and abet in a violation of, both Section 632 and paragraph (1)."

Now the magic trick, the thing that allegedly bans Vaxxed, is if they can actually pull off the claim that it is "aiding and abetting" an allegedly illegal taping session by communicating the information it held. If they can't, then this is only an issue for people who try to catch something shocking on tape, and is comparable to an ag-gag bill, which is pretty bad but not directly Wikipedia's problem. (Note: on looking at that article, I see it says that Iowa's ag-gag bill does prohibit dissemination; but this needs confirmation) But if they can pull this stunt off, then there's no difference expressed in this bill between showing the film Vaxxed at the local theater or logging into Wikipedia and adding a few quotes from the dialogue. (See the quote above: in any forum, for any purpose!) In that case it is absolutely a top-level concern for WMF and they need to participate in a lawsuit against it.

Therefore, I'd recommend taking this seriously unless the claim that it would ban Vaxxed can be reliably debunked. Wnt (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

For anyone who is not aware, Vaxxed draws heavily on the "CDC whistleblower" conspiracy theory. This was invented by anti-vaccinationist Brian Hooker, who contacted a former CDC researcher, William Thompson, to discuss what turn out to be trivia within a programme which convincingly refuted any link between vaccines and autism. Hooker recorded these conversations without Thompson's knowledge or consent, and subsequently published them, edited to distort their meaning, again without Thompson's permission.

Would this use of illicit tape recordings made and used without the second party's knowledge or consent, pertaining to a matter of medical research involving human subjects, invoke this clause? Or would it have to be in the context of a consultation or other privileged interaction? Would it become an offence to report a conversation with your doctor in the pub? I ahve not read the bill, and these things are normally written with obscurity in mind.

Not that this is evidence that "the government of the state of California is planning to prohibit screenings, viewings, and even discussions about the movie Vaxxed", as opposed to simply considering a bill that would restrict publication of discussion with a health care provider. Wakefield's crockumentary would seem, on the face of it, to be only coincidentally involved. 18:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a real stretch to assume that this would even affect Vaxxed, let alone have Vaxxed as its primary target. I guess this is another example of the tendency to conspiracist ideation and biased attributions of intentionality. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

According to this, "Proponents of the bill finally agreed Tuesday to amend it to clarify that only those who actively participated in making the illegal recording could be prosecuted or sued for helping distribute it." Note that the bill is aimed at Planned Parenthood rather than Vaxxed, but if the intention is to suppress freedom of speech it doesn't matter what they say it's about. The bill is now at an advanced stage and they were lobbying the governor: [24]

That said, this bill still should deeply worry the WMF. The reason is not that there will be dozens of editors with hidden videocameras spying on their doctors, but there *will* be dozens of editors who get emailed lab results, X-rays, and other such data who will have the notion to post them as examples of what a CBC panel looks like or what a bone spur looks like, etc. And they are at least nominally at risk, and WMF should not put up with them being nominally at risk. The revision of the bill obliterated the most clearly unconsitutional part of it, but that's a double-edged sword since it is now not so obvious a court would quickly throw it out. Wnt (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Meeting in Moscow

Thank you for your speech in Moscow.

Our reports:

• Russian Wikinews: n:ru:Джимми Уэйлс пожелал удачи правительству России.
• Commons: c:Category:Jimmy Wales in 2016 in Moscow.
• Video: c:Category:Jimmy Wales in 2016 in Moscow (videos).

--sasha (krassotkin) 16:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. I'm just into the question session, but so far nothing too surprising for somebody who has seen half a dozen such presentations. I am always surprised however how calm and reasonable Jimmy can be. One thing I noticed is Jimmy complimenting "Knowledge Day" (the September 1 back-to-school holiday in Russia) which I've usually heard called "First Bell". Wikipedia could very well encourage the observance of this holiday and make it something special here. Of course we have Jan. 15 (is it called Wikipedia Day?). But I'd certainly welcome a day that concentrates on knowledge rather than Wikipedia. Perhaps the Wiki Education Foundation might do something with this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Gamergate controversy draft

Mr. Wales, you've taken an interest in the Gamergate controversy article in the past. I believe you once suggested that anyone unhappy with the present article should try to write a better one. I invite you to give your opinion on whether I've managed to do that. Rhoark (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, so it is all about ethics in videogame journalism after all. Why didn't we say so to start with? Guy (Help!) 07:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's see what the draft says about ethics.

The Gamergate movement is described in The New York Times as "those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage."

Clusters of discussion about media ethics can be found within Gamergate, but a larger issue public focuses on political correctness and critiques of feminism, especially in the form of third-wave feminism.

Critics assert that ethics concerns are only a pretense for further harassment - a view which is bolstered by Gamergate's origins in Quinn's harassment.

Elements of the Society for Professional Journalists have attempted to communicate with and empower moderate supporters, who are genuinely interested in the ethics of journalism.

Particular issue was made of Patreon, where both developers and journalists have sought monetary donations. Suspicion arose of developers and journalists promoting each other's careers or political aims, and critics of game journalism called for outlets to create explicit policies on these types of donations.

Although there was some sincere discussion about journalistic ethics, this was overshadowed in public perception by harassment and threats. Alex Goldman from On the Media wrote that there was a "scintilla of truth and merit" to some complaints, but that 4chan's actions damaged their credibility.

The ((SPJ Airplay)) morning session concerned journalism ethics, with particular attention to Gawker Media's handling of a rape allegation.

The Save Point panel proceeded with the remaining three participants and mostly revolved around questions of ethics in journalism.

Some, including Alex Hern of The Guardian, believe news coverage has exhibited false balance in presenting two sides of the issue. Hern criticized The New York Times, Vice, and Vox for treating Gamergate ethics complaints seriously.

There is little authoritative guidance on how journalists should respond to accusations, but SPJ ethics committee chair Andrew Seaman recommends that if conflicts of interest cannot be avoided then they should be disclosed transparently.

At least four new Gamergate-linked publications emphasizing "ethics in gaming journalism" attended E3 in 2015.

Does there seem to be any problem with the verifiability of these claims? Is there anything non-neutral about their presentation? Just taking these excerpts about ethics of course doesn't give the full picture about article weight, so as a quick count I see 0 full sections and 11 main claims about ethics (including criticisms.) For comparison, I count 4 sections whose principal topic is harassment, and at least 5 times as much text compared to ethics. I'd say that if the article or topic is "about" anything its politics, but the related harassment is the single facet given the most attention. Rhoark (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

References

I completely understand. The present article makes a strong case for this being a largely one-sided dispute, with gross abuses perpetrated by a cadre of misogynist asshats. That appears also to be the consensus view of every independent source I've read in my effots to understand this (I have this terrible weakness of being unable to see what is wrong with social justice in the first place). And a few of the more reasonable members of the GamerGate community would dearly love to portray it instead as a culture war between two opposite but equally defensible sides. The problem is that it was never about the substantive matter of the purported dispute, that was always a sideshow. GamerGate is all about smear tactics, stalking, doxxing and in sundry other ways belittling and attacking everyone who was not part of the orthodoxy. Your draft reads as if it were written by one of the reasonable apologists. I am certain it is well-meaning, but for me, as basically a reader here (I do not play any video games at all and have only rarely done so in the past) the present article explains the observed facts and yours doesn't, yours increases my confusion by leaving me wondering why they still can't let it lie even now. Sorry, that's just how I see the two. I am actually probably your intended audience (unless you're writing only for the choir, as it were), and your version does not seem to me to serve my needs in reading about this topic, it fails the test of minimum astonishment. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment. I agree that "The present article makes a strong case for this being a largely one-sided dispute, with gross abuses perpetrated by a cadre of misogynist asshats." But I am less sure about "That appears also to be the consensus view of every independent source I've read in my efforts to understand this". For example, the quote from the NYT referenced above: "The Gamergate movement is described in The New York Times as "those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage" is an example which moves beyond that.

I have not had time to review this proposed draft closely enough, nor to closely review our existing entry. Because of the high emotions around this topic, I'd prefer not to comment much without spending some significant time getting back up to speed. But I'd like to recommend that emotional language like "a cadre of misogynist asshats" are unlikely to move our conversation here at Wikipedia forward in the smoothest way. Even if that were true, it is entirely possible that we could have a biased article showing only one side of the dispute. This is where NPOV gets hard.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

There's a difference between being described "by" the Times and being described "in" the Times. If you read the listed article, you can see it's clearly a self-referential description, as in Gamergate proponents would describe themselves that way. While the NYT delineates between the bulk of the hashtag supporters and the few that caused intense disruption to many lives, the bulk of the article is still about the harassment inflicted by those few. I'm sorry Jimbo, but your half-hearted interest in this without giving it the care and attention it needs (i.e. Actually reading the articles you're going to comment on) only makes things worse. 174.223.128.148 (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

There's the rub. Sources agree that a small part of the issue is the most important part. That means the article should treat it as the most important part. The draft delivers this weight through quantity and placement of text. The draft does not, as the mainspace article does, deliver this weight through weaseling and evasion about the fact harassment is still a minority or obfuscating what the majority actually thinks and does. Rhoark (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Meh not really. 'Important' is a subjective opinion and in this case the general opinion (per reliable sources) as that the issue of harrassment is the draw of Gamergate, not the ethics in journalism bit. Irregardless of the truth of the matter, as WP operates on reliable secondary sources, we are stuck with the rule of the majority here. The weight of Gamergate sources is on harrassment, not the ethics, and the article has to reflect that. Even if the reality should turn out to be the media and activist groups vastly distorting the public discussion towards one side, NPOV states that we neutrally present the sources. Not skew the article towards our preferred notion of what is correct. Even if the small part *is* important, it is not what the discussion is about due to media coverage. That may change in time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Heya Jimbo, howsa about we quote the entire NYT paragraph (with your chosen text in bold) and see how hard NPOV gets? To wit:

"The threats against Ms. Sarkeesian are the most noxious example of a weekslong campaign to discredit or intimidate outspoken critics of the male-dominated gaming industry and its culture. The instigators of the campaign are allied with a broader movement that has rallied around the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate, a term adopted by those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage. The more extreme threats, though, seem to be the work of a much smaller faction and aimed at women. Major game companies have so far mostly tried to steer clear of the vitriol, leading to calls for them to intervene."

AnonNep (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It makes sense to follow the sources, dispassionately reporting all perspectives in approximate proportion to their representation. But this is admittedly unsatisfying. Because I actually get no meaningful results from Google that would link Gamergate to the 2007 Slamgate, its obvious predecessor. Video games are meant to be art, and art is meant to be provocative and relevant, or at least have the potential to be if it wants, and so "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!" is exactly the sort of thing that people should stand up for. And if you don't stand up for it, if you don't stand up for Ethnic Cleansing (video game) (you don't have to applaud), if you start down the slippery slope of censorship, then don't be surprised when you tumble out the bottom in a mass of recriminations and suspicion about which designer is more the sell-out than who else, when in truth they all have ESRB labels stuck to their products reminding everyone that there is no doubt they are all sell-outs to those who rule them. But alas, we can't just put whatever we want to say in an article and call it an encyclopedia; nor should we take out what we don't want to say. Wnt (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with troglodytes sending rape and death threats to women involved in video gaming with the aim of driving them away, which is what Gamergate was all about? --47.138.165.200 (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Highly objectionable games are - or were - like lightning rods. They claim the criticism of the self-important guardians of morality so that nobody else has to - whether for being too sexist or being too anti-sexist, what difference would it make if we had a genuine Holocaust Tycoon for people to bicker about? You omit the lightning rod, now the house is on fire. Wnt (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

GamerGate isn't really about freedom of expression, so much as freedom of the right kind of expression. They have been standing up for certain types of games, but at the same time they are fighting to remove criticism of those games, and fighting against games which don't meet their expectations of what a game should be. In that sense it has been more of a movement for censorship rather than against it. Which is why their "ethics in journalism" argument hasn't really held up to close inspection - when you dig, they had very little in the way of genuine ethical violations. Instead they had both a lack of understanding of how journalists function, combined with a feeling that reviewers expressing certain onions - such as complaining about the themes or content of a game - was "unethical" because it was not "objective" and didn't directly relate to gameplay mechanics.

I had always hoped that GamerGate would fully incorporate real ethical concerns, because I wanted it to be more than a reactionary campaign, but in the end this never really emerged. It wasn't, in the end, the venue through which real debate could occur. And now when it is pretty much an anti-feminism conservative movement, that isn't something that is going to change. - Bilby (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

There were some real concerns, but they were trivial in the grand scheme of things. I think what it's always been about is the rank paternalism in the idea that games need to "grow up". Gone Home trades heavily on a design vocabulary its creators picked up working on Bioshock and Amnesia, which in turn owe a debt to System Shock and Ultima Underworld. Gone Home has no NPCs because they lacked the capital and manpower. So innovative, 10/10, Game of the Year. If you're not making strawmen you'll recognize people aren't really bothered that Gone Home exists, or that women liked to play it. Little budget hidden-object puzzles and Myst-likes have been quietly marketing to women for years with no one really batting an eyelash. Gamers were bothered however when Gone Home was held up as emblematic of the finer sensibilities that cultural dinosaur called "gamer" supposedly fails to possess. The critics that for so long held their noses at gamers can't stand to admit being late to the party, so they are loathe to admit how much artistry and depth has always been in the medium. To know why the controversy isn't over yet, you just have to look at how decried Deus Ex: Mankind Divided is for tackling tough, real, and topical social issues. Rhoark (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm more than a bit lost on what Gone Home has to do with what I said. Fundamentally, if you want to see the origins of GamerGate, it is more educational to look to what happened with Carolyn Petit over her review of GTA V in 2013 than it is to look to Slamgate. Or, indeed, Petit's experience is a better example than Gone Home. - Bilby (talk) 04:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You mentioned "fighting against games which don't meet their expectations of what a game should be", of which Gone Home is typically cited as an example. Rhoark (talk) 04:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so I'll take that as meaning that GamerGate was objecting to the critics who liked Gone Home, or something. I haven't played that game - I've just installed it so I will give it a shot. - Bilby (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Speaking strictly as a self-scholar, OR-y manner but from my experience on the net since the Endless September, I can see a lot of little pieces that all lead up to GG that unfortunately have not received any type of deep evaluation because of the "pressing" need by the mainstream media to focus on harassment and not try to figure out why we got here. The video game industry was and is still rather immature compared to film and music. There are problems that still exist between developers, publishers, journalists, and consumers/gamers that involve how the industry works (both financially and in operations), long-term misogyny in the male-dominated industry, and the public perception of video games particularly after Jack Thompson and the Hot Coffee issue. Major forces to cause the situation to change and led to the fuel that GG would come out of, at least that seem apparent to me, is a combination of the quickly shifting demographics of the consumer base (namely, more older players and higher percentage of females) and the strive to meet that shift with less violent/sexual content in games; the validation the industry got via the SCOTUS ruling in Brown v. EMA that video games qualified as art but which still put to the industry how to prove that, leading to games like Gone Home; and the intensification of the ongoing culture war post-9/11 that was affecting the Internet and world at large, creating not only the chan culture, but a hostile and vindictive "locker room" atmosphere on the Internet for anyone that didn't share your viewpoint. All these lead to some gamers objecting to when a non-traditional game that often is lacking deep gameplay but strong on narrative and addresses socio-political issues as to qualify as "game as art" like Gone Home is presented and praised to the gamer community as the next best thing to sliced bread by reviewers; these subset of gamers took offense to being foisted to having to accept the game's message (here, LGBT issues) and that that should accept it as a good game, with (strictly per their claims) the possibility there are undisclosed personal or financial connections between developers/publishers and reviewers that may be influencing that determination. The fuel for a bad situation was there, all that was needed was a spark to set it off. You can actually find support for all these points in the sources in both the current and Rhoark's version article, but again, the evaluation of the "why GG happened" has been drowned out by aggressive coverage of the harassment angle. --MASEM (t) 17:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

There was initially considerable coverage of why GamerGate happened, which then led to GamerGate running a campaign to target the advertisers of those who were discussing the issue. Objecting to those discussions and trying to shut them down was one of the key factors that led to GamerGate forming, or at least that's what GamerGate supporters tell us - being offended by those article and the need to punish the publications that wrote them was one of the first big goals that formed the movement. - Bilby (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Certainly that was the point where the situation got out of control, but that type of reaction (both the articles declaring "gamers are dead" and the rapid organization to launch a response) did not suddenly come out from a vacuum. The situation in the gaming industry has been a problem for years and all that was needed was the right event to make it a problem. As I've noted there's elements of all this in the sources, but what my point is that these factors (which I would think would be of strong academic interest and for ourselves as a means to document the controversy) have been generally ignored by the echo chamber that is the mainstream media repeating the same language of "GG is bad!" over and over again.Rhoark here has at least attempted to work past the rhetoric of the echo chamber effect without sacrificing core policies to document a controversy, including its origins, in an encyclopedic manner that will aid readers rather than just repeat a lopsided mainstream opinion. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

But that's precisely the point. Mainstream opinion of GG is lopsided, and it is not our job to fix it. Rhoark is, as far as I can tell, one of the moderate voices within GG, but that doesn't make it right for him to rewrite the article to present a moderate GG perspective when the highest profile sources all focus on the vicious abuse. That's using Wikipedia to fix the real world being wrong, and we absolutely must not do that. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The rub is that nearly all of our policies are based on the presumption that what we call reliable sources are writing in an objective unbiased manner, which at the time most of them were conceived was generally true (and generally remains true for the bulk of non-contentious subjects). The concept of UNDUE/WEIGHT or avoiding the false balance, for example, all make sense if we are using the objective RSes, which generally try to investigate all sides of a situation, to filter out minority viewpoints. We could use those to properly document a controversy insomuch as it was documented in the objective manner. But when the reliable sources become non-objective towards a topic, that presumption fails, and you create this echo chamber effect. It's doubly-so for GG, due to the fact that few of the nominal RSes have avoided subjective/opinionated reporting on the topic, and that for all purposes, the media is involved since the movement has been shown to have expanded beyond issues in video game press. Further, we do have established authoritative sources reporting (or at least opining) in counter-argument to the bulk of the press, but because these authoritative sources have been (properly) deemed unreliable for fact, they're being discounted as allowed sources to consider for opinion when considering UNDUE/WEIGHT aspects, which only serves to re-enforce the echo chamber. (This same issue is affecting a ton of articles on current political controversies too that involve right-leaning topics that are countering the stance of left-leaning press, eg Trump's campaign.) I fully agree we aren't here to right wrongs, but at the same time, we should not be as readily accepting of sloppy and biased reporting when it affects our neutrality and scholarship aspects to our articles. In the case of GG, no one is proposing to "right the wrong" of GG's motives and approach being called out as having questionable merit and misogynistic implications. But we should be correcting the echo chamber rhetoric that is introduced by the authors of the reliable sources, and that requires looking carefully at what these sources are saying, using NPOV (specifically YESPOV) appropriately, recognizing that there are valid opinions for inclusion from authoritative sources to go alongside the more popular opinions from the RSes, and that our tone should be impartial instead of the hostile tone taken by the press at large. None of this goes against core policy and creates a much more useable article that explains the nature and origins of the situation rather than focusing solely on the hostility towards it. We are here to document the controversy, not partake in maintaining it, and that means pulling back the curtain of opinions to understand the basis of it in a neutral manner, followed by a fair assessment (per UNDUE) of the larger opinions towards it. Rhoark's draft attempts to do just that - it may not be perfect but it absolutely does the right thing in avoiding the echo chamber of biased reporting. (And to be clear, I don't support GG, I consider myself just left-of-center in terms of political views, I just recognize the clear problems that the coverage of GG has generated compared to reviewing press from the past in terms of meeting WP's goals. My concern on GG has always been how WP needs to deal with the shifting change in mainstream media's coverage on current events). --MASEM (t) 16:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

While that may possibly be true here, I think that a climate denialist would make exactly the same claim in respect of our articles on climate science. The fact is, as we saw in the last couple of days on Wikipedia, GamerGate is defined by a group of people whose reaction to things which challenge their privilege is vicious personal attacks, doxxing and the like. Every single time anyone says anything nice about one of their opponents, or anything less than supportive about them, the attack dogs are let loose. And that is very much one-sided. So-called SJWs are not doing this. Which is probably why the media tend to identify the troglodytes as the problem and their targets as the victims. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Except that with climate change, there's mountains of research and study that have evaluated all available evidence and performed modelling via scientific methods to come to a conclusion that, by this point, puts climate change deniers as a clear fringe view with little scientific bias. In contrast, much of the details of what the actual controversy about GG is (coming from all sides, not just what GG claims are) has been ignored by the media at large because of this rather intense "harassment is evil, therefore everyone that touches GG must be evil" play (and even more recently, "gamedropping" GG into the current political spectra). The problem that our GG article has suffered (as well as many other topics across the political board over the last few years) is that editors want to be judgmental about the topic, and if the set of sources that are considered reliable also share that judgmental approach, editors are able to run with this in a vicious circle that pushes that judgmental view and blocks anything contrary to it, per UNDUE/WEIGHT (there's already arguments on the draft's discussion page about excluding opinions from non-reliable sources but otherwise appropriately authoritative for this topic.) This may be "neutral" in considering the set of reliable sources, but it is not neutral from a larger academic standpoint. Wikipedia's editors as a whole has to be able to recognize this problem that interferes with writing dispassionate, neutral and academically-useful articles, but there's far too much resistance from editors that are enjoying this entrenched view that keep banking on RS and UNDUE to keep the judgmental standpoints in these articles. The GG article is probably the most clearly recognizable place where there's this problem, but it is just the tip of the iceberg, given what I've seen posted to AN/I and ARBCOM on topics dealing with Trump's campaign and the alt-right. As one editor noted somewhere, this is more an issue with controversies in the social sciences, where nearly all determinations are subjective and thus subject to judgment, whereas for the physical sciences (like climate change, GMO, etc.) the results are much more objective and generally are either accepted or not by the world at large. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that in a few centuries from now people who do research about us would not stick to reading just the historic Wiki article, they would also study the discussions on the talk pages, this discussion right here and on other internet forums from historic internet server records, to try to understand what this was Gamergate thing was all about. So, in the end it may not matter all that much what editorial decisions we end up making. Count Iblis (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

God I hope future historians have better things to do than read inane WP talk page arguments.--JBL (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I hope not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I haven't followed the whole GG situation, but you may be able to see examples of the behaviour live at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science (and probably others) - sorry, mostly admins only, since the doxing edits have been revdelt. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Yup, that's about it. However fervently more moderate 'gaters like Rhoark might wish otherwise, GamerGate is fundamentally all about the sociopaths. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Much like Wikipedia then. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Dodgy (questionable) claim that the UK EU Referendum was advisory only

Jim, I know that you personally would had preferred "Remain", albeit as a citizen and presumably also a resident of the United States of America, which is "fair enough", albeit not entirely without objections "of an observational and reservational nature" on my part.

However, I think that you personally, or ArbCom, should perhaps consider stepping in, somehow, on the article thereof (United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016). The problem is that, the article was allowed to be, and has simply been hijacked by, pro-"Remain" anti-"Brexit" activists here in the United Kingdom (and also from the neighbouring minor British Islands, and also from Gibraltar, no doubt) after June the 23rd., to insert all sorts of "more questionable" NPOV material.

The most egregious, the most questionable, debatable and contentious of them all, is the wording that "The referendum result was not legally binding".

The sources used are simply not authoritative, on a question of law.

Put it this way, they all cannot be cited in any Court of law in England and Wales, and simply no Lord Justice (LJ) or Justice (J) (senior judge) in England and Wales would possibly allow and admit them as admissible evidence!

The Referendum was directly governed (and by nothing else) by the European Union Referendum Act 2015 (2015 c. 36), and the word "advisory" is absolutely nowhere to be found or seen, either as (in the original) enacted (version) [25] or as (in the current) amended (version) [26].

Now, the only acceptable authoritative sources on this are, in this particular order (in terms of legal authority):

1. An (emergency retrospective) Act of the British Parliament declaring that the Referendum was only advisory.
2. An (emergency retrospective) Resolution passed by both Houses of the British Parliament, declaring that the Referendum was only advisory.
3. An (emergency retrospective) Order-in-Council passed by the British Privy Council, signed by the British Queen in Council, and certified by one of the Secretaries of the Privy Council, declaring that the Referendum was only advisory.
4. A ruling by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (UKSC), that the Referendum was only advisory.
5. A ruling by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (COA), that the Referendum was only advisory.
6. A ruling by the High Court of England and Wales (EWHC), that the Referendum was only advisory.
7. A legal ruling by HM Attorney-General for England and Wales (AG), that the Referendum was only and should only be advisory.
8. A legal ruling by HM Solicitor-General for England and Wales (SG), that the Referendum was only and should only be advisory.
9. Literature or statements from the executive (HM Government; the British Government, acting for the [British] Crown), such as the Prime Minister, Government ministers (Secretaries of States as Ministers of the Crown; other junior Government departmental Ministers) and civil servants, that the Referendum was advisory.

Just because the principle of British "Parliamentary sovereignty" (that the British Parliament has and ought to have full legislative power to overthrow the results of any Referendum held in the UK), it does NOT however automatically make Referendums in the UK all advisory by default. This is a false analogy. This is based on a misunderstanding of British constitutional law, compounded by an article here in Wikipedia (Referendums in the United Kingdom), first written back in the year 2005, and was, and remains, completely unreferenced ([27][28][29]).

Look, Jim, "Brexit" might not have even started, yet, but the Referendum is surely now long over! Wikipedia, surely, cannot be allowed to be hijacked and then used to promote and peddle "pseudo-law" (especially of other Countries other than that of the United States of America), and especially for political purposes!

This is essentially, in the British legal context, the equivalent of making up a law and then quoting such a made-up law, which does not actually exist and has never existed!

This is also the British equivalent of claiming that the IRS are (is) unconstitutionally and unlawfully (illegally) collecting [federal] Income Tax in the United States for the [federal] Government of the U.S.! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Your so-called "British equivalent" of the IRS collecting taxes is nothing of the sort and is completely irrelevant. If there really has been a problem with NPOV material in the article, the place to address it is at the article Talk Page. But has the legality or status a UK referendum ever yet been tested in UK law? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

On that basis, the Referendum should also not be considered "advisory only", "by default", as fact, until it is also established in the British Courts. The Referendum (2016) Act 2015 clearly does not in fact have the word "advisory", anywhere, as I had raised this in my original opening comment, if you had in fact bothered to read it in the first place! (And I raised the example of the IRS claim (not the IRS, but the IRS CLAIM (conspiracy theory)) as an example of "fringe theories" (the operative word here is "claiming"); and indeed I personally see claiming that the Referendum was "advisory only" as another example of such fringe theories.) -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me what I have or have not bothered to read. So you've exhausted discussion at Talk:United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016? Or are you an editor so new, and so incensed by such a recent event, that you've not even had time to create an account? I think we all know what a fringe theory is, without mentioning the IRS. What do you make of these experts? Just made it all up, have they? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It might be worth waiting a week on this. The whole issue on whether the PM can sign article 50 without a vote from parliament is going to be tested in the courts this week. If there is some real legal question on this I don't think its within Wikipedia's remit to prejudge that decision. --Salix alba (talk): 21:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

To the original poster. I actually am a resident of the UK although, as you correctly note, a citizen of only the US (for now). But this is actually completely irrelevant, as are my personal views on how I would have voted, were I eligible to vote, which I am not. The point that you are discussing is a highly technical one for which, as far as I know, the vast majority of sources are in agreement with what we have written. Indeed, I've seen no reliable source to assert that the referendum is in any sense 'legally binding'.

There are two ways to approach this, one of which is quite weak, and the other of which is quite strong. There is a sense in which Parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom or, if you prefer, Queen-in-Parliament means that virtually nothing is beyond the power of Parliament - that no present Parliament can in any way bind a future Parliament. This is a common way of understanding things in the UK, but it is - as our article note - by no means uncontested. But even if true, it is true in a sense that means it isn't really particular to this referendum, but to, well, everything.

The other approach is, I think, much more fruitful, and that is to look at the actual text of the act of Parliament which set the referendum wheels in motion. And it appears to be (to me, a total non-expert) pretty clear that both a referendum *and* an act of Parliament is necessary for changes to the EU treaty situation. We've got the referendum result - we do not yet have an act of Parliament.

In any event, we need not and should not venture into our own speculations about the state of the law. As Salix alba notes above, it isn't really within our remit to prejudge what a court may say about this as soon as next week. For now, I recommend we do as we always do - follow reliable sources. If you have reliable sources which cast legitimate doubt as to the necessity of an Act of Parliament to implement the decision of the Referendum, then I recommend putting them forward on the talk page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The "European Union Referendum Act 2015" 1(1) states "A referendum is to be held on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union." It does not make any reference to a bill, and so cannot become an act. A "referendum" refers a question. Nowhere in the act is there any mention of what happens after the referendum. The question has been referred to the populace, an answer returned, and therefore the act is complete. What happens next is another matter not mentioned in the act. Sometimes the simplest thing is just to read the act! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

At any rate, the discussion over parliamentary powers vs Prime Ministerial powers is not exactly the issue raised at hand here. Whether the activation of Article 50 lies within the discretion of the PM or MPs, I have not seen a single source that says that the referendum legally compels either to act on its results, which is different for example to how sources discuss the similar Swiss referendum which has not yet been implemented. CMD (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Jim, I didn't realise that you now live on the "wrong" side of the North Atlantic with us!
Anyway, Jim, I think I am talking specifically (and pedantically) about the actual Referendum on June the 23rd. itself (and its result on the next day), rather than concerning ourselves with the wider "Brexit" process, on the British Government's part.
The problem is this, the "parameters" of what is "advisory only" in the UK and what is "legally binding" are probably understood wrongly by some people.
The more militant anti-"Brexit" "Remainers" are now essentially arguing that because of the British principle of Westminster "Parliamentary sovereignty", no result of any Referendum in the UK is and can be "legally binding".
The problem with this wide, extensive, expansive line of argument, is that it can also be said about every single legal contract and even all legal documents generally drawn up in the UK under British law (even those drawn up by a single person only), even including private Wills! The British Parliament is (in theory) perfectly entitled to pass something called a private Act of Parliament to vary the terms of any individual one of such document, or to just declare any individual one of them null and void.
If we are going down this route, then by an extension of the same logic, and if we are to be consistent, then surely we must also say that absolutely no legal contract or document written or drawn up in the UK (and other like jurisdiction with the Westminster system) is and can be legally binding!
Surely, it cannot be! Don't be silly, of course we can't say that! Only an "anarchist" or a "nihilist" would possibly argue along those lines! This is just pure "anarchistic" or "nihilistic" nonsense!
I think a much more reasonable approach is to consider, and to argue, that the Result is "binding" (in practice; even to Parliament, by default, unless Parliament decides to pass a law (primary legislation) to specifically overturn the Result), but "not absolutely binding" (in theory).
I don't know, perhaps "systemic bias" means there would always be a "consensus" to allow sources which say "the Referendum is legally advisory only", no matter how questionable they really are, in practice. Hopefully all would die down when those wording have to be deleted (obviously), when Article 50 is finally triggered ... when would obviously render any such discussion as pure academic speculation!
I don't know, as in I don't know if I would want to try to have the "not legally binding" and "advisory only" wording taken out, myself, now! Obviously edit-warring is not allowed here on Wikipedia!
A final observation: I think that the customary practice here in the UK is this, that if the Government (the Executive) now says "A is X", then what the Government says is usually naturally deemed more authoritative (as in, the Government (usually) takes precedence over anyone else and what they have to say), unless British Parliament or the British Judiciary decides to override or overrule what the Government has said, and says "A is actually Y, and not X". -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

On the situation in the Azerbaijani part of Wikipedia

• (Continued...)

Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia foundation have prepared a pocket of suggestions a long time ago. However, Sortilegus have prevented it from passing by stopping administrators’ discussion and Wertuose by stopping the arbitration Committee vote. Even though the user who started this vote asked for explanation, Wertuose didn’t give any till this day. Both of these administrators have gone beyond their authorities by abusing their powers, which is why I suggest them stripped of their administrators’ status. There was enough of vandalism, prejudice and fakery in their activities already (1 (Reliable sources wiped out), 2 (The name of the state, has been removed.), 3 (Reliable sources wiped out), 4 (Picture of the article - az:Bakı xan sarayı), is deleted., 5 (insult; Əxlaqsız ifadələrə görə...) and 6... And Sefer Azeri, who does massive vandalism and blocks perspective users with no reason, should be not just stripped of his status, he should be blocked. There was 4 days left till the end of the Arbitration Committee vote. A majority voted positively. If there’s a need, let us make a vote in 4 days, if there’s no, recognize the legality of that vote. After that we would be able to fix problems in AzWiki ourselves. And I would be able to participate in fixing them, sure, you would have to unblock me for that. When I’m asking why I’ve been blocked, they don’t answer. A representative of Meta asked then about this as well, but didn’t receive an answer. Idin Mammadof (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

WORSE bad news out of California

Is WMF following this? [30]

According to the story, a lawyer didn't like a review somebody posted on Yelp. He went and sued that person (and only that person). The person was "served" with court papers at an address where, according to the L.A. Times, she may no longer have lived at all (!), and the lawyers got a $550,000 default judgment against her for a few nasty lines on some website. Now where things get especially relevant for Wikipedia is that they got an order from the court for Yelp to remove the postings made on her behalf, which is seen as an end-run around all the fancy Section 230 CDA arguments the Web relies on. The story cites an amicus letter here.

This is of absolute importance for Wikipedia because any given company could sue all the editors of an article, count on a few being "uncontactable", and get some kind of injunction against the article itself, which they could abuse to their heart's content. With perhaps a boodle of cash on the side if they ever manage to catch up to those college students at their new addresses. Wikipedia is either going to stop this nonsense in the courts, give up and redirect to Baidu, or organize a seriously effective terrorist wing, so let's hope the first will do for now. Wnt (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

How would the courts get the addresses of anonymous WP editors to serve the papers? DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: Some of them are "anonymous" IPs, so perhaps the lawyers filing the suits might buy the addresses from particularly enterprising local ISPs, or rely on the dozens of spy sites that track your ads and browsing across the internet to get a hit, or look for clues on Wikipedia user talk pages, or send innocent-sounding Wikipedia emails to the users in order to get return addresses, or at last resort subpoena Wikipedia for the IPs -- though that last option gives a heads-up, my guess is if it's just a subpoena it doesn't give Wikipedia standing on the actual lawsuit itself. Or something else. You look at a system that is all about spying and surveillance and suggest you can't spy and surveill with it? Wnt (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I probably asked a very naive question - I was assuming papers had to be served to a physical address. I guess in this electronic ages, sending to an active email address is enough. This is very worrying. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer and I don't know anything about that - as you see above, I was shocked that a "process server" could target an empty apartment without literally putting a summons in the victim's hand - but once you have a primary email address it is probably not hard to find the person who goes with it, and to obtain then a physical address from a commercial database. If the database is inaccurate, so much the better for the plaintiffs -- if a default judgment can be obtained, whether it is against someone real or fictitious, under the logic of this case Wikipedia never gets a chance to contest the order at all. Wnt (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The issue of default judgments due to documents being served at incorrect addresses is not restricted to California, or even the US. There's a firm int he UK called Parking Eye that has been the subject of sustained and bitter criticism for this problem. The lawsuit in this case would very likely have failed in court and would almost certianly fail on retrial if the original verdict is set aside (which it should be), so there's really nothing to see here. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: If they can force Yelp - or Wikipedia - to take down content unless and until a real address for a real person is found, there is something to see here.

P.S. Note this lawsuit against 100 anonymous Steam users, which to my untrained eye would appear to have similar possibilities, and in any case may shed more light on what tricks might be available to designate a defendant on Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

And this is exactly the issue with alarmism raised by untrained eyes. A "company" of two people announcing they are suing 100 people pro se is in no way more alarming than the usual attempt to use the courts to suppress expression one finds distasteful. The existence of a lawsuit's only meaning is that a lawsuit exists, and drawing any conclusions aside from "pro se? this isn't likely to get anywhere" at this stage is foolish. The only reason something came out of the first example was that it ended up in a default judgement, most likely because the defendant wasn't actually served. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

This was a default judgment. I presume Yelp would challenge it when the order is served, since they were not named as a party and had no chance to defend this. As I say, the problem is default judgments generally. If someone from Wikipedia was sued for defensible material then the WMF would undoubtedly join the case or at least back them up. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You think? Black Kite (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of that, but WMF has the same obligations as anyone else when a subpoena is issued. One thing's for sure, the article on Video Professor includes some pretty trenchant criticism of their business practices. Any evidence of a takedown order or actual successful proceedings against the users? And incidentally, I have been the target of a stalker before now, so the ability to get a court order to unmask an anonymous troll is something I would defend absolutely. Everyone has the right to face their accusers, even Video Professor. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Also: [31] indicates policy changed after this. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: Yelp did challenge it when the order was served and that is the case going to the California Supreme Court, the one that I think the WMF needs to take interest in. It doesn't matter if a lawsuit is pro se and the defendants are John Doe known by screen name -- or even if the content was defamatory -- if there's a way to turn that into a default judgment and an injunction for Wikipedia to remove content that is said not even to be theirs to dispute! You see? Wnt (talk) 02:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Among other things, this discussion seemed to bring up the question of Wikipedia editors' liability so I looked at Section 230 CDA and found this item (c) (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker,

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

According to this, it looks like:

• Wikipedia is not liable for the content contributions of Wikipedia editors
• Wikipedia editors are not liable for their content contributions that they got from a source
• Wikipedia editors are liable for their content contributions that originate with them, i.e. their original research that they put into Wikipedia.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm shocked - shocked! - that Wikipedia editors are adding their own original research. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Well I have yet to see evidence that ALL OMICS publications are non-RS...is this OR? DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

OMICS is the first publisher ever to be pursued by the FTC due to its predatory publishing practices. The "peer review" process at OMICS consists of processing your credit card details. OMICS fails the basic standards of academic publishing, and this is not even remotely controversial. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy, I don't see how your response relates to my message, if that was what you were responding to. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Bob, I should have explained myself a little better. There are several editors on here who are extremely vocal about the OMICS publishing group. They write very disparagingly about ALL journals in the publishing house as a whole. I sometimes wonder whether it would take just one journal which does adhere to a more stringent process to instigate litigation for these comments. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I think your remark is part of a more general question of the effect of Section 230 CDA on talk pages, and whether editors have liability for their talk page remarks. Since I don't have a complete handle on the situation re Section 230 CDA for relatively tame article pages, I don't think I'll get into the situation for talk page discussions, which can be feral, although with far less public exposure. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I found a case that is somewhat relevant to the situation you mentioned re OMICS: Global Telemedia International v. Does 1-4, which was dismissed. Here's an excerpt from the case description, "The court also held that the posts were most likely to be taken by readers to be opinion rather than fact because they were 'full of hyperbole, invective, short-hand phrases and language not generally found in fact-based documents,' and 'posted anonymously in the general cacophony of an Internet chat-room in which about 1,000 messages a week are posted about GTMI' ". --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

You're missing the point. DrChrissy is engaged in his usual exercise of trying to find reasons why I am wrong about something, because he holds me in no small part responsible for his topic bans, and is therefore trying to hijack this conversation for a complete non-issue. DrChrissy is trying to make the case that a journal (which one? we don't know, no concrete example is proposed) may be reliable despite being published by a company that has been identified as the most prominent in predatory open access publishing; that article will show why no OMICS journal can be considered reliable. No effective peer review, misrepresentation of the editorial boards and so on. Very few articles actually referenced OMICS and a fair number of those cites were rather obviously added by the authors themselves, but in any case this would belong on WP:RSN, where previous discussions have clearly supported removal. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Guy, of what possible relevance are my topic bans to this thread? DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Of what possible relevance is your history with me relevant to you sniping at me over my removal of predatory journals? Ooooh, let me think about that for a moment. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I have not spoken about you specifically, otherwise I would have pinged you. I have spoken about a "group" of editors. I have also not commented here about removal of references. I have commented about highly inflammatory and potentially libelous (in my non-lawyer opinion) comments by these editors, which makes it relevant to this thread. It is YOU that is trying to hijack this thread by misrepresenting me, now please return to the subject of the thread. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Those are not quite right. The WMF is not liable for content contributions of wikipedia editors *as long as it provides the relevant editor identification when presented with a legitimate legal request*. Refusal to do so would mean it would lose its protection. Which is why it hands over IP's at the drop of a hat. All Wikipedia editors are liable for anything they contribute, regardless of its truth, its sourced from elsewhere etc. 'Someone else said it first' is rarely a legitimate defence against libel & defamation. (Truth is, in the UK) Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your last point, how would you interpret the excerpt from Section 230 CDA that was in my message? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Bob K31416, "information content provider" doesn't mean what you think it means. It isn't a synonym for "published source", it's explicitly defined as any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service. That is, S230 will protect website A if it in good faith mirrors website B, and it might cover website A if it summarizes information published by website B in its own words; it will explicitly not protect website A if it hosts potentially defamatory or copyright-violating material taken from a print source. ‑ Iridescent 08:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the definition, "The term 'information content provider' means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service." – I'm not sure that your interpretation is correct, where the publisher or author of a print source is not an information content provider. It seems that the publisher or author of a print source would satisfy the definition of an "information content provider" if anyone, not necessarily the print source publisher or author, provided the information of the print source through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.

However, I'm unsure about how Section 230 CDA applies to the case of a Wikipedia editor using a print source. It would be helpful if there was a reliable source to clarify this case.--Bob K31416 (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay Bob. I will give you an example. In July 2014 I edited the Jesca Hoop article. With this diff I added some (oblique) personal information, using a printed source (newspaper article). Some representing the mangement of the artist stepped in and removed it (here). They left this message on my talk page, that, to me, was a clear legal threat. Under UK law (where I reside as does the management company) - could I have been sued? (NB The threat and COI issue was dealt with by an administrator on their Talk page and I have refrained from editing the page since. Hence this example). Karst (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Yup. The UK (as does most other jurisdictions including the US) holds that acts by its citizens taken within its domain are covered under its law. Regardless of where the data itself is held. It might not actually get anywhere, but as far as UK law is concerned, you are publishing the information you added to the public. Regardless if it was published elsewhere first. Plenty of judges have already slapped down people who retweet info under gag orders because of this. Which is why UK editors need to be really careful when editing articles about celebrities who have super injunctions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It looks like in the July 2014 example, the editor claiming to be a representative of Jesca Hoop deleted material that they didn't want on the internet regardless of the type of source, print or internet. On the other point regarding UK editors, Section 230 CDA is a U.S. law so it may not apply to any editors outside the U.S., which I didn't consider in my first message above.

Maybe someone from the Wikimedia Foundation might contribute some info here about how Section 230 CDA applies to a Wikipedia editor who uses a print source and whether this U.S. law has any application to UK editors. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Bot edit wars

See The Wikipedia bots that are engaged in spats that never end Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• "We had bots which have been crawling around and changing all the references to ‘Palestine’ to ‘Palestine territory’,” says Yasseri. “Or bots going around and changing all the references to ‘Persian Gulf’ to ‘Arabian Gulf’.” Other bots would then change them back again." We did? I must have missed that. Or is he talking about other languages than enwiki? Black Kite (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has search results for bot wars, and search results for bot edit wars.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

That article does mention edits in German - as far as any specific "bot wars" here, really makes me want to slap a {{citation needed}} stamp on their article! If any of this IS going on and needs review, please post at WP:BOWN. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

English Wikipedia pages tend to have a lot more watchers, so problems tend to get stamped out a lot more quickly, but bots have certainly been known to get into edit-wars with each other here as well. There's a well-documented one in the recent history of List of women linguists which ran from March to August, if you want a concrete example. ‑ Iridescent 21:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

This is the preprint. The bots won't always act in a way that is compatible with each other. Instead of the system evolving toward stability where you have agreement, you can get ever increasing complex states of dynamic equilibrium. It may lead to the appearance of a digital biology similar to how chemistry became biology. Count Iblis (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

VisualEditor scrambling templates & adding blank parameters

When I predicted wp:VE would be workable within 3 years, I was thinking in terms of software development by programmers who had control of the product and supporting files, not aware of the complexity of template editing to depend on users to document the template-parameter messages. Anyway, what a complex mess, where VE scrambled the existing cite template parameters, removed the indentation spacing, and inserted some very rare, obscure parameters ("via=") as empty data-entries into the wp:wikitext source text. See recent example from editing page "Miocene" (the epoch), to change original {{cite journal}}, from indented format, into scrambled text:

{{cite journal

|title=Evolution of Asian monsoons and phased uplift of the Himalaya Tibetan plateau since Late Miocene times

|year=2001 |journal=Nature |volume=411 |pages=62–66

|doi=10.1038/35075035

|author= An Zhisheng, John E. Kutzbach, Warren L. Prell & Stephen C. Porter

|issue=6833} }

Became:

{{cite journal|last=|first=|date=|year=2001|title=Evolution of Asian monsoons and phased uplift of the Himalaya Tibetan plateau since Late Miocene times|url=|journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]|volume=411|issue=6833|pages=62-66|doi=10.1038/35075035|pmid=|access-date=|via=|author=An Zhisheng, John E. Kutzbach, Warren L. Prell & Stephen C. Porter}}

As noted above, the VisualEditor removed all indentation, all spaces between parameters, and inserted new blank parameters (such as "|last=|first=|date=" and "via="), and scrambled other parameters, such as "issue=6833" moved to middle from bottom. This is very tragic, but fortunately only the edited cites are scrambled, and other cites are left unchanged. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2016, noted "issue=" moved. 05:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This (particularly the insertion of parameters) has nothing to do with VisualEditor, but is the result of badly-written TemplateData at Template:Cite journal/doc. The removal of the indents can be changed (as otherwise this would mess up almost every infobox), but it's probably better to keep the whitespace-removal option because more line breaks could disorganise the flow of wikitext. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 13:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I have fixed Template:Cite_journal/doc TemplateData section to omit those suggested/required settings ("suggested": true), especially for "access-date=" which is typically rejected when calling {cite_journal}. Now, the wp:VisualEditor no longer forces insertion of those 7 blank cite parameters "|last= |first= |date= |url= |pmid= |access-date= |via=". That was a quick fix to a horrific problem when using {cite_journal} with VE, because the wp:CS1 cite templates are already over-complicated without auto-forcing in those blank parameters. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Does anyone realize how hard it is for a newcomer — or even an experienced editor — to edit around either of those citation templates, rather than proper and tight inline citations? Carrite (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

As I recall, Jimbo and some other admins tend to dislike the current templates, especially when considering all the extreme wp:data hoarding done using templates as an excuse to add every possible parameter, and pack in the game score statistics. A few editors have even insisted on listing over 80 individual authors (with "last79=" & "first79=" etc.). However, if we revive the wp:Autofixing strategy, to have a template parse the given data, and shift text into the likely parameters, then template editing could be very beneficial for users, especially to auto-fill template parameters until an expert user can move the data into the wp:CS1-style compliant format(s). Otherwise, one of the most useful templates is {convert}, such as to tell how many inches from mm, {{convert|86|mm|in|abbr=in}} = 86 mm (3.4 inches), or measure a warm day in the U.S. for Celsius readers, as 87–99 °F (31–37 °C). Currently, our templates are in their infancy, compared to autofixing of parameters, like old cars that do not auto-brake when a child or animal runs into the street; remember those backward years of primitive vehicles? -Wikid77 (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree it's difficult dealing with the templates as they are today. I try not to use too many when writing new articles. Sole Flounder (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Jimbo Wales. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)